get_simplified_d_gain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only reveals the return type and default value ('[UINT8, default: 100]') but does not state that the tool is read-only, what the return value represents, or any side effects. For a get tool, the read-only nature is implied but not explicit, and the lack of output schema leaves the agent uncertain about the response structure.

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 very concise, consisting of two short fragments. It front-loads the purpose and adds type information in brackets. However, the structure is somewhat informal and could be slightly more organized, such as separating the type info into a dedicated field.

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?

For a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It tells the name, a brief identity, and the return type/default. However, it lacks context like the value range (0-255), units, or how this gain interacts with other settings. Given the domain complexity (flight controller tuning), more completeness would be beneficial.

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 baseline score is 4. The description adds value by indicating the return type and default value (UINT8, default 100), which helps the agent understand what to expect from the response. Since there are no input parameters, additional parameter details are not needed.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('simplified_d_gain') and adds a brief explanation ('D scaling slider'), which differentiates it from other similar get_ tools like get_simplified_d_max_gain. However, it does not elaborate on the exact role of the D scaling slider in the PID controller, which would further enhance clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many related get_ tools for PID gains (e.g., get_d_pitch, get_simplified_d_max_gain) and no criteria for selecting this one. The agent would have to infer usage from the name alone.

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