get_rc_smoothing_auto_factor_throttle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that it is a read-only operation or any side effects, though the name suggests a read. The type and default value are helpful but insufficient.

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, very concise. It front-loads the type and default. However, it redundantly repeats the tool name, which is unnecessary.

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 should fully define the return value. It provides type and default but omits the valid range, unit, or further explanation of 'auto-smoothing aggressiveness'. This is adequate for a simple scalar getter but leaves gaps.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain them. It adds value by stating the return type (UINT8) and default value (30), which aids interpretation.

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 'Auto-smoothing aggressiveness for throttle channel', which distinguishes it from sibling getters like 'get_rc_smoothing_auto_factor' and the corresponding setter. However, it unnecessarily repeats the tool name.

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 alternative getters or setters. The description lacks context on its role within the RC smoothing system.

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