get_feedforward_boost

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

No annotations are provided, but the description makes it clear the tool is a read operation ('Get'). It discloses data type (UINT8), range (0-50), default (15), and effect on gyro response. This sufficiently conveys the behavioral traits without contradiction.

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 at three sentences, front-loaded with the tool name and purpose. The tuning guidance is appended efficiently. Some minor run-on structure, but overall appropriate for a simple getter.

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 output schema, the description fully explains the parameter's meaning, range, and tuning context. It implicitly distinguishes from the set tool and other get_* tools by explaining the specific role of feedforward boost.

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 with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description goes beyond by adding the data type, valid range, default value, and tuning semantics, which are not present in 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 states the tool retrieves feedforward_boost, explains it as an acceleration component (second derivative of stick), and provides specific tuning guidance (increase if gyro lags, decrease if overshoots). This distinguishes it from other get_* tools which are generic parameter retrievals.

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 gives explicit conditions for increasing or decreasing the value based on gyro behavior (lag vs overshoot). However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this get tool versus its set counterpart (set_feedforward_boost) or other related get tools, though the context is clear.

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