get_dterm_lpf1_dyn_min_hz

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to state that the tool is read-only, safe, or idempotent. A simple getter may be assumed safe, but explicit statement would improve 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 concise (one sentence plus type/default) and front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be more structured by separating the purpose from technical details.

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, the description is minimally complete: it states what is retrieved, the context (idle throttle), type, and default. Missing is the broader tuning context or relation to sibling parameters like min/max.

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 (empty input schema, 100% coverage), so no parameter explanation is needed. The description adds value by explaining the retrieved parameter's type and default, which is 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 identifies the tool as retrieving the dynamic D-term LPF1 minimum cutoff at idle throttle, with specific values like AOS tune 80 Hz and default 75. The purpose is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like get_dterm_lpf1_dyn_max_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus related getters (e.g., get_dterm_lpf1_dyn_max_hz) or setter counterparts. The description does not help an agent select among sibling tools.

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