get_feedforward_transition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates this is a read operation to retrieve a parameter value, with no mention of side effects. The type, range, and default are specified in brackets, and it warns about a conflict with another parameter.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose, then adds a warning, and ends with the type/range/default annotation. All sentences earn their place.

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?

The tool is a simple getter with no parameters and no output schema. The description fully covers the purpose, behavior, relevant warnings, and value range. It is complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 no parameters (0 params), so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details.

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 that the tool retrieves the feedforward_transition parameter which blends feedforward toward zero near stick center, and provides example values for different use cases. It distinguishes itself from sibling get_* tools by specifying its unique purpose and warns about interaction with feedforward_jitter_factor.

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 includes a crucial usage guideline: the parameter must be set to 0 when feedforward_jitter_factor is active. It does not compare usage with the many other get_* tools, but it provides context that helps decide when to use this tool over related set_* tools.

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