get_rssi_src_frame_lpf_period

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It specifies the return type (UINT8) and default value (30), which adds transparency about the output. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, safe, or free of side effects. The behavior is implied by the 'Get' prefix, but explicit confirmation would improve transparency.

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: two connected sentences that front-load the action and provide essential details. Every word adds value—action, resource, purpose, type, and default. No extraneous text. This is a model of efficiency.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns (type and default). It lacks some context about the meaning of the LPF period in a practical sense (e.g., units, range), but the combination of name and description likely suffices for an agent familiar with the domain. Slightly incomplete for a novice.

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 (empty schema), so baseline score is 4. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by stating the return type (UINT8) and default (30), which is effectively documentation of what the tool returns (though this dimension concerns parameters). For a parameterless tool, the baseline is justified.

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 'Get rssi_src_frame_lpf_period: LPF period for frame-error-based RSSI smoothing.' It specifies the exact parameter being retrieved and its function, distinguishing it from other getters in the sibling list (e.g., get_rssi_channel, get_rssi_smoothing). The verb 'Get' paired with the parameter name provides unambiguous purpose.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the corresponding setter (set_rssi_src_frame_lpf_period) or other RSSI-related getters. It implies querying the current value but lacks contextual instructions.

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