get_spa_yaw_center

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

With no annotations, the description adds context: it is a read operation, requires USE_WING, specifies UINT16 type, and default value per profile. However, it does not disclose side effects, behaviors if USE_WING is missing, or persistence details beyond the profile hint.

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 a parenthetical note, each part adding value: purpose, requirement, type, and default. No redundancy or wasted words.

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, the description covers purpose, requirement, type, and default. It lacks explanation of SPA acronym or value range, but given no output schema, it is minimally adequate. Sibling tools provide context but description could be more self-contained.

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 with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter info beyond confirming no parameters are needed, which meets the baseline for a param-less tool.

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 yaw SPA, specifying the exact resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_spa_yaw_width and get_spa_yaw_mode by targeting the centre value, and from set_spa_yaw_center as the read counterpart.

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 notes the prerequisite USE_WING but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like set_spa_yaw_center or other getter tools. The naming implies usage for reading, but no exclusions are stated.

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