get_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states it reads via both MSP and CLI and details the return data (MSP_STATUS fields, CLI status and tasks output). This goes beyond a simple 'gets status' and gives the agent a clear picture of what to expect, though it doesn't mention connection requirements or side effects (which are presumably none).

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a clear breakdown of return values. No redundant words; every sentence adds informative detail. Perfectly concise for 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 has zero params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is well-rounded: it explains what the tool does and what it returns. It could optionally mention if a connection is required or how to interpret the output, but for a straightforward status read, it is sufficiently 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 tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. Per rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific info but also doesn't need to.

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 'Read FC status via both MSP and CLI' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_aircraft_profile or board_info by specifying it returns MSP_STATUS data plus CLI status/tasks output, making its unique purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage when you need flight controller status, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance. It lacks exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools like why_wont_it_arm or diagnose, so the agent gets no help in choosing between them.

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