get_thr_hover

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It adds value by specifying the data type (UINT8), range (0-100), and default (50), which are not evident from the tool name alone. However, it does not mention return format or side effects, but as a read-only getter, this is sufficient.

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 extremely concise: two clear sentences plus a bracketed type/range summary. It front-loads the essential information without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 is complete. It explains what the returned value represents, its range, default, and usage context. No further information is needed.

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 tool has no parameters, and the schema is fully covered (empty). The description adds meaning by specifying the output range and default, which is extra context beyond the schema. Baseline for zero-parameter tools 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 the tool returns the estimated hover throttle percentage, which is a specific resource. It explains its use in alt-hold and internal calculations, distinguishing it from other getters. No ambiguity.

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 context indicates this tool is used for reading a configuration value, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like set_thr_hover or specify when not to use it. For a simple getter with no parameters, the guidance is adequate though not exhaustive.

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