get_yaw_expo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only safe operation with no side effects, though that is implied by 'Get'. There is no mention of permissions, rate limits, or response behavior. The lack of detail makes it insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 at 10 words, with no wasted text. It front-loads the tool name and includes key details (type, default). However, it sacrifices explanatory depth; a slightly longer description could improve clarity without losing conciseness.

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, the description is marginally adequate. It tells the agent what value is retrieved and its type/default, which covers the basic needs. However, without an output schema, the agent might benefit from knowing the exact range (0-255 for UINT8) or the unit of measurement. The lack of explanation for 'yaw expo' leaves a knowledge gap.

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 zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. According to guidelines, baseline is 4 for zero-param tools. The description adds value by noting the return type (UINT8) and default (0), which helps the agent understand the output format. No parameter documentation is needed.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'yaw_expo', making the tool's purpose obvious. It also includes the data type (UINT8) and default value, which enhances clarity. However, it does not explain what 'yaw expo' represents (e.g., exponential rate for yaw), which would improve understanding. Compared to sibling getters, it is adequately specific but not distinguished by context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or which sibling tools (e.g., set_yaw_expo) might be related. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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