get_gps_rescue_ascend_rate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It adds meaningful context about the behavior: it is a simple read operation for a configuration parameter, and provides the data type, range, and default. This goes beyond the minimal and helps the agent understand the nature of the value. No contradictions with annotations as none exist.

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: a single line with a title and parenthetical info. It front-loads the action and resource, then provides the explanation. Every part earns its place with no wasted words. Ideal for quick parsing.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what parameter is read, its meaning, type, range, and default. It does not explicitly state the return format (e.g., the value alone), but this is implied. Given the tool's low complexity, the description is complete enough 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 zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. Per guidelines, with high coverage, baseline is 3. The description's inclusion of the parameter's type and range is helpful but not required for parameter semantics since there are no parameters.

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 gps_rescue_ascend_rate parameter and explains it as the climb rate during initial climb phase. It specifies data type (UINT16), valid range (50-2500), and default value (750), providing a precise, unambiguous purpose that distinguishes it from sibling getters like get_gps_rescue_descend_rate.

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 implies the tool is used to read the current ascend rate setting, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as set_gps_rescue_ascend_rate or other gps_rescue getters. No when-not-to-use or context for selection is given, which for a simple getter is adequate but not exemplary.

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