get_rc_smoothing_auto_factor

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the trade-off (smoothness vs. lag) and mentions the default value (30) and type (UINT8), but does not specify the return format, range, or valid values, leaving some ambiguity.

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—three short sentences. Every sentence provides essential information: what it is, the trade-off, and the default/type. No superfluous text.

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 lack of an output schema, the description would benefit from clarifying the return value format (e.g., just the numeric value, any units). Currently, it only tells the agent what the parameter is about but not what the response will look like. Still, for a simple getter, it is adequate.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the trade-off, default, and type, which helps the agent understand the semantics. Thus it exceeds the baseline of 3.

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's purpose: retrieving the auto-smoothing aggressiveness for setpoint channels. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('rc_smoothing_auto_factor'), and distinguishes itself from other getters by explaining the trade-off ('Higher = smoother but more lag').

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. As a read-only getter, usage is implicitly to read the current value, but the description does not mention that checking this parameter before setting it or that it is relevant only for certain RC link types.

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