starlink_location

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 discloses that GPS sharing must be enabled and that the tool returns 'unavailable' if not, which is important for an agent to interpret results. It does not mention side effects, but as a read-only getter that is acceptable.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences: the first states the action and primary output, the second adds the requirement and potential failure mode. No superfluous words or repetition of schema details.

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 parameterless tool, the description fully covers the necessary context: what it returns, the opt-in prerequisite, and the behavior when that prerequisite is unmet. An output schema exists, so detailed return-structure documentation is not required.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline per rubric is 4. The description adds value by specifying the output (latitude, longitude, altitude) and the 'unavailable' fallback, which is not present in the schema.

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 states 'Get dish GPS location (latitude, longitude, altitude)' – a specific verb (get), resource (dish GPS location), and the output fields. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like starlink_status or starlink_reboot.

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 identifies a prerequisite (opt-in via Debug Data) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or name any sibling tool as a replacement. It implies usage when GPS location is needed, but lacks explicit exclusions or routing guidance.

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