get_spa_roll_center

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the meaning of the value, its type (UINT16), default (0), and that it's per profile. However, it does not disclose any side effects, error conditions, or whether it is safe to call (though as a getter it is presumably safe).

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 plus type/default info. It is front-loaded with the purpose and includes requirement and default. No extraneous 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?

For a simple getter with no output schema, the description covers purpose, requirement, data type, default, and per-profile scope. It is adequate but could mention that it reads a configuration value from the flight controller.

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 no parameters (0 params, 100% coverage). The description adds value by specifying the data type and default, which are not in the schema. Per the rules, baseline is 4 for 0 params, and the description meets this.

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 setpoint centre value for roll attenuation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_spa_roll_mode or set_spa_roll_center. However, it begins by repeating the tool name rather than using a more explicit verb like 'retrieves'.

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 mentions the prerequisite 'Requires: USE_WING' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_spa_roll_mode, get_spa_roll_width). No context is given about typical use scenarios.

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