get_failsafe_delay

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral context. It explains the parameter's role, default (15 = 1.5 s), minimum safe value (2 = 200 ms), and unit (UINT8). This adds significant context beyond a simple 'get failsafe_delay' but does not describe return format or connection requirements.

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 two sentences long, directly states the tool's purpose, and provides key values (default, minimum) without fluff. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by explaining the value's meaning, units, and constraints. It could be more complete by stating the expected return format (e.g., raw uint8 or converted seconds), but the provided context is sufficient for a simple getter.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds semantic meaning by explaining the parameter's purpose, default, and safe range, which goes beyond the empty schema. For a zero-parameter tool, this is strong context.

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 failsafe_delay parameter, defining it as 'Stage 1 guard duration — time from confirmed signal loss to Stage 2 activation'. This specific verb and resource combined with the parameter explanation distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_failsafe_landing_time.

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 meaning and safe values but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_failsafe_delay or other get_failsafe_* tools. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, only a description of the parameter itself.

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