get_dterm_lpf1_dyn_max_hz

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implicitly indicates a read operation via 'Get', but does not explicitly state it is safe or read-only. It provides type and default info, but no further behavioral context (e.g., that no state is modified).

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 a single, highly efficient sentence. It front-loads the purpose, includes an example, type, and default, with no redundancy. Every element earns its place.

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 without output schema or parameters, the description covers meaning, a typical value, and type/default. It could explicitly state the output unit (Hz) but infers it from the example. Overall, complete enough for an agent to understand what value is returned.

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 zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% trivially. No parameter information is needed. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add anything beyond 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 the tool retrieves the 'dterm_lpf1_dyn_max_hz' parameter, explaining it as the Dynamic D-term LPF1 maximum cutoff at full throttle. It provides an example value (AOS tune: 110 Hz) and type info (UINT16, default: 150). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_dterm_lpf1_dyn_min_hz and get_dterm_lpf1_static_hz.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage context via 'at full throttle', but lacks exclusions or guidance on when not to use it. Given sibling tools exist, an explicit usage note would improve clarity.

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