get_motor_pwm_inversion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral info. It discloses the setting type and default (UINT8, default OFF) but doesn't explicitly state the return type or side effects. As a getter, behavior is simple, but the description could be more precise about the return value.

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 with a single sentence plus a parenthetical, front-loaded with the tool name and purpose. No redundant information or unnecessary words.

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 getter tool with no parameters, annotations, or output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what the setting does, when it's relevant, and its data type/default. It could optionally state that it returns the current value, but 'Get' implies that.

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 description adds value by describing the setting as UINT8 with default OFF. This informs the agent about the nature of the returned value, going 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 the tool gets the motor_pwm_inversion setting and explains its purpose (invert PWM output polarity). It distinguishes itself from the sibling setter tool by naming convention and verb usage.

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 provides a usage context ('For ESCs that require inverted signal') but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like set_motor_pwm_inversion. No when-not or exclusion criteria are given.

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