get_spa_yaw_width

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

No annotations exist, so the description must provide behavioral context. It mentions data type, default, and a requirement, but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe any side effects. The 'Get' verb implies read-only, but this is not confirmed.

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 brief and front-loaded with the key purpose, but wastes one word repeating the tool name. Overall, it is efficient.

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?

The description covers the essential facts (purpose, type, default, requirement) for a parameterless getter. However, it does not explain the broader context of SPA or how this width is used, which may be needed for full understanding.

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 add parameter information. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 width for yaw SPA attenuation ramp, distinguishing it from related tools like get_spa_yaw_center or get_spa_yaw_mode. However, it starts with a tautological repetition of 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?

The description includes a prerequisite (USE_WING) but does not compare with alternatives or specify when to use this tool over other get_ tools. The guidance is limited to a required define.

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