get_crashflip_motor_percent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data type, range, and default value, but it is ambiguous whether this is a persistent parameter or a live real-time reading. It does not clarify what the tool returns when called outside of crash flip mode or any side effects.

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 relatively short (three sentences) but mixes get and set instructions in a way that may confuse. It could be more tightly focused on the get action. The formatting with brackets for the type/range is helpful.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return value's type, range, and meaning. However, it does not clarify that this is a configuration parameter (not a live reading) or relate it to the sibling set tool. The context of when this parameter is relevant (crash flip mode) is implied but could be more explicit.

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, so the description adds value by explaining the meaning of the returned value: motor output percentage during crash flip/turtle mode, with range 0-100 and default 0. It clarifies that 0 means disabled and values >0 enable the feature, with 100 recommended.

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 states 'Get crashflip_motor_percent: Motor output percentage during crash flip / turtle mode.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose as retrieving a motor output percentage related to crash flip mode. It is sufficiently distinct from the many sibling 'get_' tools.

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 mixes get and set semantics: it explains when to set the value ('set >0 to enable') but does not provide guidance on when to use this get tool versus the sibling set_crashflip_motor_percent. There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' advice.

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