get_gyro_calib_duration

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It reveals the unit, range (50-3000), default (125), and trade-off (longer = more accurate). However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or safety implications. A score of 3 reflects adequate but incomplete behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two concise sentences with an inline type spec. Front-loaded with the key information (verb, resource, unit, example, trade-off). Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

No output schema, but description fully explains the returned value: unit, valid range, default, and implication of longer duration. For a simple getter with no parameters, this is complete enough for an agent to understand and invoke the tool 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 tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds context about the meaning of the returned value (unit, range, default, accuracy trade-off), which is useful beyond the schema. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description meets that.

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 verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'gyro_calib_duration'. It explains the unit (0.1s steps) and provides example (125 = 12.5s), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. Among many get_* siblings, this uniquely identifies a single parameter.

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 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance is given. However, the nature of a simple getter (no parameters) and the presence of set_gyro_calib_duration sibling make usage obvious. The description implies use for reading gyro calibration duration but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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