recommend_tuning

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them: it names the data sources the recommendation is derived from (batch sampler, IMU, in-flight FFT, ESC RPM) and stresses 'Recommendation ONLY — never applied', confirming the analysis never mutates the craft.

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?

A single dense sentence plus a short emphatic caveat, with the core purpose front-loaded. The parenthetical list is information-rich rather than filler, though it is packed tightly enough to read as a fragment.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the read-only nature is well covered. However, for a tool requiring a 'path' argument, the description never says what that path should reference or what the tool needs in order to produce recommendations, leaving a real invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema documents nothing. The description partially compensates by implying the set of values the 'area' parameter can take (harmonic notch, PID, autotune), but the required 'path' parameter is left completely unexplained — an agent cannot tell whether it points at a log, a config, or a directory.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (advisory tuning recommendations) and enumerates the concrete subject areas: harmonic notch, PID, autotune. It is clearly distinct from siblings like analyze_log or get_params, though it never names a sibling to route against.

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 statement of when to choose this over analyze_log, log_summary, or get_params, and no prerequisites (e.g. what input is needed first). The only usage-adjacent content is the caveat that the output is advisory only, which is a constraint rather than selection guidance.

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