get_fpv_mix_degrees

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the data type (UINT8), valid range (0-90), and default (0), but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires a connection, or has any side effects. For a simple parameter getter, this is minimal but acceptable.

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?

Description is very concise (one line) and includes essential information. However, it could be structured with clearer sections (e.g., value range) but is adequate for its simplicity.

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 and no annotations, the description is minimal. It covers the value semantics but lacks details on return format, prerequisites, or potential errors. For a zero-parameter tool, it is sufficient but not comprehensive.

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 exist, so baseline is 4. The description adds type and range info beyond the empty schema, which is helpful.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves the FPV camera tilt angle for tilt-compensated yaw mixing, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('fpv_mix_degrees'). It distinguishes itself from numerous sibling 'get_*' tools by specifying the exact parameter and its context.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is a parameter read, but does not state prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred over other 'get_*' tools.

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