get_deadband

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 gives the data type, range, and default, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or disclose any behavioral traits beyond the value retrieval. It is adequate for a simple getter but lacks explicit transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a bracketed spec. It is front-loaded with the purpose ('Get deadband: RC deadband...'), then adds a usage hint, and finally the technical constraints. Every element serves a purpose with no wasted words.

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 that the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a solid explanation of the deadband concept, its unit, the effect of increasing it, and the acceptable range. It is nearly complete, though it could mention that the value is persisted in the flight controller configuration.

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 parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds meaningful context by specifying the returned value's type (UINT8), range (0–32), and default (0), which goes beyond the empty input schema. This provides an agent with valuable information about what to expect without needing to infer from the 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 it retrieves the RC deadband around stick center in microseconds, specifying it's for RC sticks. It distinguishes from the sibling get_yaw_deadband by explicitly saying 'RC deadband'. However, it could be more explicit about the differentiation from other deadband parameters.

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 provides a usage hint ('Increase if sticks don't return to exact center'), which implies when to adjust the value. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this getter versus other tools (e.g., set_deadband) or provide guidance on alternatives. The hint is useful but only partially addresses usage context.

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