get_prearm_allow_rearm

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

Without annotations, the description effectively discloses this is a read-only getter with no side effects. It specifies the value type (UINT8) and default state, giving the agent relevant behavioral context beyond the name.

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 sentence with essential details (purpose, type, default). Every word adds value; no waste.

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?

The description covers purpose and default but omits explicit return value details (e.g., possible values are ON/OFF). For a simple getter with no output schema, it is adequate but not fully 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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaningful context by explaining what the retrieved value represents, going beyond mere parameter documentation.

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 'prearm_allow_rearm' setting and explains its purpose (allow re-arm without toggling prearm switch). It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes from siblings like 'set_prearm_allow_rearm'.

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 context (checking current re-arm setting) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs avoid, nor contrasts with the sibling 'set_prearm_allow_rearm'. Guidance is minimal.

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