get_motor_pwm_protocol

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

Without annotations, the description adds value by disclosing the return type (UINT8), default value (DSHOT600), and sensor-specific recommendations. It does not contradict any annotations (none provided).

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 concise sentence with a parenthetical note, containing all essential information without extraneous text. Every word earns its place.

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 explains the return value adequately (type, default, sensor recommendations). It could list all possible protocol values, but for a simple getter, it is reasonably complete.

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, so baseline is 4 (as per rules for 0 params). The description adds meaning by explaining the return value's significance, including default and sensor-specific details, exceeding the baseline.

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 motor PWM protocol (ESC communication protocol) and provides specific protocol values for different gyro configurations, distinguishing it from other get_* tools that retrieve different settings.

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 for checking the current motor protocol but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus set_motor_pwm_protocol or other related tools. It provides context on sensor-specific defaults but no direct guidance on alternatives.

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