get_imu_dcm_ki

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It accurately describes the tool as a read operation (non-destructive), explains the parameter's role, and provides data type/range ('[UINT16, 0–32000, default: 0]'). It does not describe return format, but the explanation of the parameter value is sufficient.

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 highly concise, using three sentences to convey the name, purpose, effect, usage frequency, and data format. Every sentence is informative with no 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?

The description is complete for a simple getter: it explains the parameter's meaning and value range. It lacks explicit error scenarios or return format, but given no output schema and the tool's simplicity, the information is adequate.

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, but the description adds significant value by explaining what the retrieved value represents (integral gain, acc-based yaw correction) and its valid range. This exceeds the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools.

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 imu_dcm_ki parameter, defines it as 'Complementary filter integral gain', and explains its effect ('Non-zero allows slow acc-based yaw correction'). It distinguishes from siblings like set_imu_dcm_ki and get_imu_dcm_kp by being a getter for a 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 notes it is 'Rarely changed,' which implies infrequent use, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_imu_dcm_kp or set_imu_dcm_ki. Usage is implied but not explicitly guided.

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