get_gyro_lpf2_static_hz

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It correctly indicates it's a read operation ('Get') and gives tuning hints but does not disclose any side effects, limitations, or safety profile beyond what is implicit.

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 three sentences plus a note. It front-loads the key information and every sentence adds meaningful context without 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?

Given no output schema, the description provides enough context for a getter: it explains what the value represents, its impact, a special condition, and the default. It could mention the return format but is largely 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 no parameters in the input schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining the parameter's meaning, tuning guidance, default value, and data type as a bracket note.

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 it retrieves the gyro_lpf2_static_hz value, identifies it as LPF2 cutoff, and explains its significance with tuning guidance. It distinguishes this tool from many sibling get_* tools by naming the specific 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?

The description does not explicitly tell when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_gyro_lpf1_static_hz. It only provides context about the parameter's behavior, not selection criteria.

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