get_crashflip_auto_rearm

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

No annotations are present. The description only repeats the tool's name and adds the data type and default value. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, or whether it reads from hardware or cache.

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, using a single sentence plus parenthetical type/default info. It front-loads the key information without unnecessary text, though it could be slightly more structured.

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?

For a simple getter with no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose and data format. However, it lacks context about when auto-rearming occurs or how this setting interacts with other crash-flip parameters. Completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 tool has no input parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description includes the data type and default of the retrieved value, which is slightly helpful but not about input parameters. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 the tool retrieves the 'crashflip_auto_rearm' setting and explains what it does ('automatically re-arm after a successful crash flip recovery'). However, it does not differentiate from other getter tools, which are abundant among siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it is a simple getter, the description does not mention when querying this specific parameter is appropriate or what problem it solves.

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