get_pidsum_limit_yaw

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It identifies the tool as a getter by the verb 'Get', but does not explicitly state it is read-only, safe, or non-destructive. It also lacks details on response format, error conditions, or required state (e.g., must the flight controller be connected?).

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 plus a compact bracket annotation showing the type and default. Every word serves a purpose, and it front-loads the key information: the role of the parameter and typical usage values.

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 the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential meaning and typical values of the parameter. It does not specify the exact return format (likely a single UINT16), but this is implied by the bracket note. The description is adequate for an agent to understand what it retrieves.

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 the description compensates by explaining the semantics of the returned value: it clamps total yaw PID output, recommends setting to 1000 during initial tuning, and notes the default is 400. This provides meaningful context 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 pidsum_limit_yaw value and explains its purpose: clamping total yaw PID output. It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_pidsum_limit' by specifying 'yaw', but does not explicitly contrast with other getters or the setter 'set_pidsum_limit_yaw'.

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 includes tuning advice ('Set to 1000 during initial tuning; default 400'), which is more relevant to setting the value than reading it. It provides minimal guidance on when to use this getter versus alternatives, such as checking the current value or comparing with other PID limits.

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