get_feedforward_jitter_factor

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

No annotations exist, so description carries the burden. It explains the parameter's purpose and effect, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only (implied by 'get') or describe any side effects. For a simple getter, it is adequate but not exceptional.

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 a single sentence plus a compact bracket notation for range/default. No redundancy, front-loaded with purpose, and every phrase adds value.

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?

Given no output schema or annotations, the description explains the parameter's behavior and value interpretation. It does not describe the return format (likely just the numeric value), but for a simple getter this is sufficient. Slightly incomplete due to missing return type.

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 tool has no parameters and schema covers all (0). The description adds value by providing the range [UINT8, 0–20, default: 7] directly, compensating for the schema's lack of constraints. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 feedforward_jitter_factor parameter and explains its function: suppressing FF on slow/jittery stick inputs. It also distinguishes the effect of higher vs lower values, which differentiates it from other feedforward parameters.

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 on tuning (freestyle/HD vs racing) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_feedforward_averaging or get_feedforward_boost. No exclusions or decision criteria are given.

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