get_yaw_deadband

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

Discloses data type (UINT8), valid range (0-100), and default value (0). This is useful behavioral info beyond a simple 'get'. However, no annotations exist to contradict, and it does not explicitly state read-only nature (though implied). Still adds value.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence plus bracket notation. Front-loaded with tool name and purpose. No wasted words.

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 zero parameters, the description provides essential info (type, range, default). It could mention that it is read-only, but that is reasonably inferred. Acceptable completeness given low complexity.

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?

No input parameters. Schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). The description does not add parameter-specific info, but that is not needed. Adequate for a parameterless 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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves the yaw-specific deadband value. The description specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'yaw_deadband', and adds context that it's a deadband around center. Among many sibling get_* tools, this one is uniquely identified as yaw-specific, avoiding confusion with generic get_deadband.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_deadband or set_yaw_deadband. The description only states what it does, not when to use it. Missing context for selection.

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