get_f_yaw

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the transparency burden. It states it 'gets' a value but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only, nor does it disclose any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The minimal description leaves behavioral traits unclear.

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 clauses) and front-loaded with the key information. Every word adds value: tool name, purpose, data type, and default value. No wasted content.

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 parameter retrieval tool with no parameters, the description is mostly complete. It explains the value type and default. However, it lacks context about return format or how the value is used, but given the tool's simplicity, it is adequate.

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, so the baseline is 4 per instructions. The description adds value by specifying the output type (UINT16) and default (120), which aids interpretation of the result, even though no parameters exist.

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 feed forward value for yaw (f_yaw). It uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'f_yaw', which is distinct from siblings like get_f_roll or get_f_pitch. The inclusion of data type and default further clarifies the purpose.

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 alternatives like get_f_roll, get_f_pitch, or set_f_yaw. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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