get_feedforward_smooth_factor

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral aspects such as read-only nature, side effects, or return format. While the tool is likely a safe read operation, the absence of explicit transparency about what it returns (e.g., current value) and lack of any behavioral hints beyond the parameter description leave the agent underinformed.

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: one sentence plus the range annotation. It front-loads the action ('Get feedforward_smooth_factor:') and immediately explains the parameter's meaning. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the essential meaning of the parameter but stops short of explicitly stating that the tool returns the current value. The range information helps, but an agent would benefit from knowing the exact return structure (e.g., integer). The description is minimally adequate but not fully 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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters, the description cannot add parameter semantics, and the baseline score of 4 is appropriate. The description includes the range [UINT8, 0–95, default: 65] which provides context for the return value, effectively compensating for the lack of output 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 the feedforward_smooth_factor parameter and explains its purpose ('Additional smoothing applied to the FF signal'). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other feedforward getters, the verb 'get' combined with parameter explanation makes the action unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. As a simple getter, usage is implied but not explicitly stated. No exclusions, prerequisites, or comparative advice for the many sibling getters is given.

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