get_i_pitch

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool gets a value but does not state it is read-only or safe. The mention of default 84 could hint at expected behavior but lacks explicit safety or operational context.

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 very short and to the point, but lacks structure. It combines the purpose, type, and default into a single line, which is functional but not ideally formatted for an agent.

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 partially explains the return value (type and default). However, it does not describe units, range, or any side effects, leaving some ambiguity for an agent unfamiliar with PID tuning.

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 has no parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds value by indicating the returned value is a UINT8 with a default of 84, giving semantic hints about the output format and typical value.

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 pitch I gain. It distinguishes from sibling tools for other axes or PID components (e.g., get_i_roll, get_i_yaw, get_p_pitch). The mention of '[UINT8, default: 84]' provides type and default info, though it might be confused as a 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among hundreds of sibling getters, the description does not help an agent decide between, e.g., get_i_pitch and get_p_pitch. No prerequisites or context are mentioned.

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