get_pid_in_tlm

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It states that the tool includes PID data in telemetry output and notes protocol support dependency. However, it does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, potential side effects, or system impacts. Basic behavioral disclosure but lacks depth.

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 short sentence with a technical appendix. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and key details without redundancy. Could be slightly improved by front-loading the action, but it's clear and compact.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains the tool's function and a dependency (protocol support). However, it does not describe the return format or how to interpret the result. For a simple getter, this is minimally adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 in the schema. The description adds value by specifying the expected value type (UINT8) and default (OFF), which helps the agent understand the nature of the retrieved setting without needing to infer from the name alone. This exceeds the baseline 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 pid_in_tlm setting, explaining it includes PID data in telemetry output. The verb 'get' combined with the resource 'pid_in_tlm' and the explanatory text provide a specific purpose. It distinguishes from sibling getters by focusing on PID telemetry inclusion, though it could be more unique.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_pid_in_tlm. The only context is 'where supported by the telemetry protocol,' which is a condition rather than a usage recommendation. Lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice.

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