get_horizon_limit_sticks

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

The description discloses the data type (UINT8), valid range (10–200), default value (75), and the semantic meaning ('gives full acro authority'). With no annotations, this provides adequate behavioral context for a simple read operation.

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 with embedded technical details in brackets. It contains no redundant information and efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and constraints.

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 parameterless getter with no output schema, the description fully covers the necessary information: what is retrieved, its type, range, default, and interpretation. No gaps remain.

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%. The description adds value by explaining what the returned value represents, which goes beyond the empty schema.

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 'Get horizon_limit_sticks' and explains what it returns: 'Stick deflection (%) at which horizon mode gives full acro authority'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_horizon_limit_degrees and set_horizon_limit_sticks.

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 usage to read the stick deflection threshold, but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like get_horizon_limit_degrees or set_horizon_limit_sticks. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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