get_thr_expo

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

The description reveals the data type (UINT8), valid range (0–100), and default value (0), which cues the agent about the return format. With no annotations, these details partially compensate, but the description does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or safe, nor does it mention any side effects. There is no contradiction with annotations (none provided).

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 short, but it redundantly restates the tool name ('Get thr_expo:'). The bracketed type/range information is useful. Overall minimalist but could be more efficient by omitting the redundant name.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain the meaning of 'throttle expo' (e.g., how it affects throttle stick response) to be complete. Currently, it only provides technical constraints without semantic context, leaving the agent to guess the parameter's purpose.

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 properties, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds value by specifying the return value's type, range, and default, which are not present in the schema. This information helps the agent understand what to expect from the 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 states 'Get thr_expo: Throttle expo' which identifies the tool as a getter for the throttle expo parameter. However, it does not explain what throttle expo is or its role in the system, making it minimally clear. The sibling 'set_thr_expo' distinguishes this as a read operation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or reasons to choose this getter over other getters or set_{thr_expo}. An agent must infer usage solely from the name.

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