get_thrust_linear

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the tool is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. The focus is on the parameter's effect rather than the tool's behavior, leaving the agent uncertain about the output.

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 relatively short but mixes tool purpose, parameter explanation, and usage tips. It could be restructured to separate the tool's action from the parameter description. The addition of the bracketed type info is unnecessary and confusing.

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 tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to explicitly state what the tool returns (the current thrust_linear value). While it explains the parameter's meaning, it omits critical information about the return format or how to interpret the result. A complete description would say 'Returns the current thrust_linear value (UINT8, 0–150)'.

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, yet the description includes '[UINT8, 0–150, default: 0]', which describes a non-existent parameter. This directly contradicts the schema and misleads the agent. Schema coverage is 100% (no params), so the description should not add parameter information.

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 starts with 'Get thrust_linear', clearly indicating the tool retrieves the thrust_linear setting. However, it conflates the tool action with an explanation of the parameter effect, which slightly dilutes clarity. A more precise statement like 'Retrieves the current thrust_linear value' would be better.

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 provides advice on parameter values ('20–40% is typically enough') but no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. Given the sibling set_thrust_linear, it would help to mention that get_thrust_linear is used to read the current value before modification. No context on tool selection is given.

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