get_dyn_notch_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 explains the meaning of the value and includes range/default information, but does not explicitly state read-only semantics or any side effects. However, given the tool is a parameter getter with no parameters, the behavioral transparency is acceptable.

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: two sentences plus a bracketed note. It front-loads the tool's name and purpose, and every sentence adds useful information without redundancy. 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?

For a simple getter with no parameters, output schema, or annotations, the description covers the essential points: what the value represents, default, and effect of changing it. It could mention that the operation is read-only, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 (100% coverage). The description adds value by specifying the value's range (200–1000) and default (600), which goes beyond the schema's empty definition. According to guidelines, with 0 parameters the baseline is 4, and the description provides extra meaning.

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 starts with 'Get dyn_notch_max_hz' clearly indicating a read operation on a specific configuration parameter. The phrase 'Maximum frequency any notch will track' defines the resource precisely. The purpose is obvious and distinct from sibling tools like set_dyn_notch_max_hz, though not explicitly differentiated from other get_* notch 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 provides context about when adjusting this value might be beneficial ('Narrowing the range improves notch resolution'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this getter versus alternatives. For a simple read operation, the guidance is adequate but lacks explicit usage boundaries.

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