set_crash_recovery_angle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the parameter range and default but fails to mention any behavioral traits such as whether the setting is applied immediately, requires a reboot, or has side effects. The description is minimal.

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 sentence that conveys the purpose, unit, type, range, and default value. It is highly compact with no wasted words, fitting the tool's simplicity.

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 is a simple setter with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential parameter details. However, it omits context like whether the setting is persistent, takes effect immediately, or interacts with other settings (e.g., crash recovery enable). This is adequate but not fully complete.

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 already describes the parameter with range and type, but the description adds meaningful context: 'Maximum recovery correction angle (degrees)' clarifies the parameter's role and unit, and the default value '10 (per profile)' is extra information not in the schema. This justifies a score above baseline 3.

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 tool's purpose: 'Set crash_recovery_angle: Maximum recovery correction angle (degrees).' It uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('crash_recovery_angle'), and includes the unit and default value. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'set_crash_recovery' or 'set_crash_recovery_rate', though the meaning is clear.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites. The agent is left to infer usage from context alone.

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