get_tpa_speed_adv_mass

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the data type (UINT16) and default value (1000), which adds some transparency. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is read-only. The 'get' prefix implies reading, but without annotations, more context would be beneficial.

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 a single line that efficiently conveys the core information: the resource, action, unit, requirement, and metadata. It is front-loaded and contains no superfluous words, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what is retrieved, the unit, the model, a prerequisite, and the data type with default. It does not explain domain terms like 'TPA' but that is acceptable. The description is sufficiently complete for a simple getter tool.

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 explain parameter semantics. With no parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate as the baseline, and the description does not need to add anything beyond what the schema already provides.

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 gets the craft mass (g×0.1) for the ADVANCED speed TPA physics model. It identifies the specific resource and action, and differentiates from sibling tools by specifying 'ADVANCED' and the 'mass' parameter, along with the prerequisite 'USE_WING'.

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 ('Requires: USE_WING'), which provides some guidance on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_tpa_speed_adv_drag_k or the set counterpart, nor does it mention that this is for reading only. The usage context is partially addressed but not fully elaborated.

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