get_horizon_ignore_sticks

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

The description implies a read-only get operation, but since annotations are absent, it should have explicitly stated that it does not modify state. It mentions the data type (UINT8) and default (OFF), which helps, but the return representation (e.g., 0 or 1) is not clarified.

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 brief (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose. The first sentence is somewhat redundant (repeating the name), but the second provides essential context. Minor redundancy prevents a 5.

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 flag getter with no output schema, the description explains the behavioral meaning and default value. It could be improved by explicitly stating the return values (e.g., 0 for OFF, 1 for ON) and mentioning related settings like horizon_delay_ms.

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 the input schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level information because there are none. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with 'Get horizon_ignore_sticks' which clearly indicates retrieval. It then explains the effect of the setting when ON, adding context that distinguishes it from other parameters like horizon_delay_ms. However, it could more explicitly state that it returns the current value.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_horizon_delay_ms or get_horizon_level_strength. The description focuses solely on the parameter's effect, not on selection criteria.

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