read_tuning

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 importantly warns that exiting CLI reboots the FC, so this tool reboots and reconnects (~7s), which is a critical side effect. It also discloses the return content, though it doesn't explicitly state that no configuration is changed.

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 three sentences: the first states the purpose, the second the return structure, and the third the critical side effect. It is front-loaded, succinct, and every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what it does, what it returns, and a key operational side effect. It could perhaps specify units or detailed format, but the overall context is complete enough for correct invocation.

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, so the input schema provides no meaningful constraints. The description adds value by enumerating exactly what data is read (PIDs, rates, filter cutoffs), which effectively explains the tool's behavior in lieu of parameter details.

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 reads fixed-wing PID gains, rates, and filter cutoffs, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_pid (write) and read_rc_channels. It also specifies the return format (PIDs grouped by axis, rate and low-pass-filter settings), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly implies usage for reading tuning parameters on fixed-wing aircraft, and notes the CLI-based access. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like cli_batch or set_pid, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select this tool over siblings.

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