get_gyro_notch1_cutoff

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 a read operation ('Get') and adds behavioral context: the returned value is a UINT16 with a default of 0 and must be less than gyro_notch1_hz. This is sufficient for a simple parameter retrieval.

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 a single sentence followed by a type/default hint, both front-loaded. No wasted words; every part is informative and necessary.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key points: what is retrieved, its constraint, type, and default. It could be more explicit about the acceptable range (0-65535) and return format, but these are minor omissions for a simple getter.

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 is empty (0 parameters), so schema coverage is trivial. The description adds meaning by explaining the parameter's purpose (bandwidth), its constraint, and its type/default. This adds value beyond the schema for an agent understanding the tool's function.

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 bandwidth of gyro notch 1, includes a constraint (must be less than gyro_notch1_hz), and specifies the type and default. It distinguishes from siblings like get_gyro_notch1_hz (frequency) and set_gyro_notch1_cutoff (write).

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 state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage when needing the bandwidth value, but no exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided. The constraint hints at relationship with gyro_notch1_hz but doesn't fully guide selection.

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