get_failsafe_procedure

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

Without annotations, the description effectively explains the behavior of each possible return value (DROP, AUTO-LAND, GPS-RESCUE) and notes the default. This covers the key behavioral traits for a read-only tool. However, it could mention additional context like when this setting is applied (e.g., on failsafe trigger).

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 fairly concise, using a single sentence with a list. It avoids redundancy but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating the type/default info). It earns a 4 as it communicates effectively with minimal waste.

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, so the description must explain return values. It covers the three options, their behaviors, and the default. It could mention the data type (UINT8) more explicitly. For a simple getter, it is largely complete.

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?

No parameters are defined in the input schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of the returned values. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4.

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_procedure' and lists the three possible values (DROP, AUTO-LAND, GPS-RESCUE) with brief explanations. The verb 'Get' directly indicates the operation, and the content distinguishes it from setter tools like set_failsafe_procedure.

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, nor does it provide prerequisites or exclusions. It only implicitly describes the return value. Given the large sibling list of similar getters, more guidance would be beneficial.

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