list_flight_modes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return payload structure, including the critical arm_assigned flag, and the verb 'List' implicitly suggests a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly address behavior on connection failure or clearly state that no changes are made, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by a compact structured list of return fields and a final practical tip. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values and includes a critical flag (arm_assigned). The workflow tip adds valuable context. It stops short of a 5 by not mentioning what happens if the FC is not connected or if read_rc_channels() fails.

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 covers 100% of them (none). The description therefore has no need to explain parameter semantics, and the baseline of 4 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('List all available flight modes') and clearly scopes the resource to 'current switch assignments.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like assign_switch and set_flight_mode by focusing on listing rather than modifying modes.

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 tip explicitly recommends calling read_rc_channels() first and assign_switch() after, giving clear usage context and alternatives. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the practical workflow and 'critical to know before first flight' note provide strong contextual guidance.

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