get_mixer_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly states this is a read operation ('Get'), lists all possible values with descriptions, and specifies data type (UINT8) and default (LEGACY). This sufficiently discloses behavior 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 extremely concise: one sentence stating the purpose, followed by a compact list of value definitions. Every sentence adds necessary information with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core explanation.

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 adequately explains the return value and its possible modes. It covers the key aspects: what the tool retrieves, the meaning of each value, and the default. It could mention that it's read-only, but 'Get' implies that. Overall complete 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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds value by explaining the return value's semantics (the possible mixer type values and their meanings), which is helpful beyond the empty schema. Baseline for zero params is 4.

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 gets the mixer_type parameter and explains its purpose as 'Motor mixer output mode'. It lists the possible values with brief meanings, distinguishing it from other getter tools like get_mixer or get_motor_idle by specifying the exact 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 implies usage as a simple read operation to retrieve the current mixer type. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but given its specificity, usage is clear. No guidance on when not to use is provided, but it's adequate for a straightforward getter.

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