calibration_procedures

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

The closing "Read-only" merely restates readOnlyHint=true, so no credit there. Useful added context is the conditional coverage of connected-vehicle support and the disclosure that cancellation behavior is covered, but nothing is said about response shape, length, or cost that goes beyond the existing annotations and output schema.

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 purpose statement is front-loaded and the enumerated content list is dense with information rather than filler. It runs slightly long for a no-argument informational tool, but each listed item corresponds to real returned content.

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 zero-parameter, read-only informational tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description says enough to call it correctly: what is covered, that it is read-only, and that it adapts to a configured vehicle. Only the relationship to sibling tools is missing.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter semantics for the description to add or omit.

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?

"Explain every calibration MAVForge supports" is a specific verb+resource, and the enumeration (preconditions, physical steps, parameters changed, verification, cancellation) tells the agent exactly what the answer covers. It never names or contrasts with a sibling like mavforge_capabilities or diagnose, so differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when asked how to perform a calibration, and "includes support for the connected vehicle when one is configured" hints at a conditional context. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to an alternative for general capability or fault questions.

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