Mariner GPS Tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait — that the result is the 'initial' (not final) great-circle bearing — which matters for long distances. However it says nothing about units, north reference, range, auth, or behavior for identical points.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The operative verb and the two required inputs are all conveyed immediately, and no sentence fails to earn its place.

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. For a pure-computation tool with no annotations and nested object parameters, the definition covers the core purpose but omits edge cases (identical points, antimeridian crossing) and the initial-vs-final distinction beyond a single adjective.

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?

Reported schema coverage is 0% at the top level, and the description adds no information about 'from' and 'to'. The nested lat/lng schemas are, however, unusually thorough on accepted coordinate formats, and the names from/to are self-explanatory, so the semantic gap is limited.

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 and resource with a qualifier: 'Calculate the initial true bearing between two GPS coordinates.' This is clearly distinguishable from calculate_distance and calculate_cross_track_error, though it does not name those siblings explicitly. An agent can identify the operation and its inputs without opening the schema.

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 guidance on when to use this versus calculate_distance or calculate_cross_track_error, which are the obvious overlapping siblings in a coordinate-math suite. There are no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It makes clear this is a pure, stateless geometric computation with no side effects, and it discloses the conventions of the result (side of track reported as port/starboard, plus along-track distances). It stops short of stating units or input validation behavior such as what happens with degenerate waypoints.

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, front-loaded sentence that defines the metric before listing outputs. It is tight, though the trailing clause about port/starboard and along-track distances restates material that the output schema already covers.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and all three required parameters are fully documented in the schema. The only gap is the absence of guidance linking it to the related bearing/distance tools, which is minor for a self-describing calculation.

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 100% and each lat/lng field documents accepted formats (signed decimal, hemisphere letter, DDM, DMS) in detail. The description adds only the semantic mapping of the three points (two waypoints plus vessel position), so the schema does the heavy lifting and a 3 baseline 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?

States a specific verb (calculate) and a precisely defined resource (cross track error), then spells out the geometry: perpendicular distance from a position to the great-circle track between two waypoints. This is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like calculate_distance or calculate_bearing.

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 definition of XTE implicitly tells an agent when the tool applies, but it never explicitly states when to prefer it over calculate_distance or calculate_bearing, nor any preconditions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real behavioral trait: both great-circle and rhumb-line routes are produced. However, it says nothing about output units, spheres vs. ellipsoids, validation failures on malformed coordinates, or the fact that this is a pure side-effect-free computation.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb and the two distance models up front and zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 two-coordinate computation the description covers the essential scope, and the presence of an output schema means return values need not be enumerated. The remaining gaps, namely units and sibling routing, are modest for a stateless geometry helper.

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 reported top-level schema coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter guidance at all, so by the stated rule it should compensate and does not. It is rescued from a lower score because the nested lat/lng properties carry unusually rich format documentation (signed decimal, hemisphere letters, DDM, DMS, and the sign-plus-hemisphere prohibition), leaving little for the description to add.

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?

Specific verb (calculate) plus a precise resource (great-circle and rhumb-line routes between two GPS coordinates), which tells the agent exactly what is computed and that two distance models are involved. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as calculate_bearing or calculate_cross_track_error, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'between two GPS coordinates' implies the input shape but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to the four closely related sibling tools. The agent must infer that this is the tool for distance as opposed to bearing or cross-track error.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It conveys the acceptable input shapes and the two output formats, which is the meaningful behavior for a pure conversion function, but it says nothing about precision/rounding, invalid-input handling, or hemisphere/sign conflict failures.

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 tight sentence with the resource and both output modes front-loaded and no filler. It is essentially the title with slightly more detail, so it is efficient but not maximally informative per word.

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-value documentation is not required, and the schema fully documents the inputs. For a low-complexity, three-parameter conversion tool the description is nearly sufficient, with only failure-mode context 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema itself enumerates the accepted latitude/longitude string forms in detail. The description only restates the decimal-vs-DMS choice already covered by the schema, so baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb pair (parse/format) and the exact resource (latitude and longitude), with the two output modes named. It is distinct from the calculate_* siblings, but the description never explicitly differentiates itself from convert_speed or the calculation tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the siblings. The agent must infer from the purpose alone that this is the tool for coordinate reformatting rather than distance/bearing math.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose the default behavior when 'to' is omitted (return all units), input validation behavior, or output format. For a mutation-free but multi-mode conversion tool, this is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Every word earns its place by naming the operation and the complete unit domain.

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?

The tool is simple (3 params, no nesting) and has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. The description is adequate for the conversion domain, though it omits the optional-'to' default behavior, which would be helpful in a multi-unit conversion context.

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 100%, and the schema documents all three parameters including the optional 'to' with its fallback behavior. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (convert) and resource (speed value), and enumerates the exact unit domain (knots, mph, km/h, m/s, ft/s), which matches the schema enum. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like convert_coordinates, which handles a different quantity.

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 implied by the tool name and the domain listing, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention that the 'to' parameter is optional (behavior falls back to returning all units), and no routing to alternatives. The context is clear enough to act, but nothing beyond inference is provided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully signals that only "public" tools are returned (no auth/private catalog implied) and that the list reflects currently available tools, but it says nothing about filtering, ordering, or result volatility.

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 efficient sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and no filler. Nothing to trim.

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 discovery tool with an output schema that already describes the returned list, the description is close to sufficient — only the usage guidance (what to do after listing) is absent.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a parameter-free tool.

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 ("List") and a clearly scoped resource ("public Mariner GPS Tools calculators"), so an agent can tell it is a discovery tool rather than one of the calculate_*/convert_* siblings. It does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 implied — an agent would call this to discover what calculators exist before selecting one — but the description never says when to use it, when not to, or what to do with the result. No alternative or prerequisite is mentioned.

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