get_tpa_breakpoint

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context: the scale (1000-2000), the behavior that attenuation is proportional from this point to full throttle, the data type (UINT16), and the default value (1350). However, it does not disclose error conditions or whether the operation is purely read-only (though 'get' implies that).

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—only three sentences—yet conveys the essential information: what the tool does, the scale, the behavior, and the default. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the returned parameter, its scale, default, and effect. It is complete for a simple read operation, though it could briefly mention that it returns the current setting or note that it's a read-only retrieval.

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, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description provides additional detail by specifying the scale and default value, which adds meaning beyond the empty schema. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description meets that.

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 that the tool retrieves the tpa_breakpoint value, explains that it is a throttle level on a 1000-2000 scale where TPA begins, and mentions the default value. This distinguishes it from many sibling 'get_' tools by providing specific meaning.

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 implies its usage (to get the TPA breakpoint setting) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, such as other get_ tools or related set_tpa_breakpoint. No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned.

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