get_anti_gravity_p_gain

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation and includes the data type and range. However, it does not disclose any side effects, prerequisites, or safety implications beyond the implied read-only nature.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, consisting of a single sentence plus a tuning hint and data specification. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Minor structural issues (repetition of the name) do not significantly detract from readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

In the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description explains what the tool returns (the parameter value with type and range). However, it lacks details about the return format, whether a connection is required, or any further context about the parameter's role.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has no parameters, but the description adds value by specifying the data type (UINT8), valid range (0-250), and default value (100). This provides useful semantic information beyond the empty schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that this tool retrieves the anti_gravity_p_gain parameter, explains its function (boosts P-term on rapid throttle changes), and provides a tuning hint. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'get_anti_gravity_gain' tool, which likely retrieves the I-term gain.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description includes a tuning hint ('Reduce if punches cause P-induced oscillations') but does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_anti_gravity_gain or set_anti_gravity_p_gain. No context about prerequisites or conditions is given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.