get_altitude

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the source (barometer) and units, but does not mention real-time behavior, data freshness, or any side effects. For a read-only sensor read, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 a single, well-front-loaded sentence of 12 words. Every word adds value: 'Get current altitude (meters) and variometer (cm/s) from the barometer.' There is no wasted text or unnecessary detail.

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?

There is no output schema. The description specifies units (meters, cm/s) but does not indicate the return format (e.g., object fields, data type). It also lacks information about error conditions or edge cases. Given the absence of an output schema, the description should provide more structural 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?

The input schema has zero parameters (100% schema coverage), so the description logically adds no parameter information. With 0 parameters, the baseline for this dimension is 4, as the description has no need to elaborate on parameters.

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 ('Get'), clearly states the resource ('current altitude (meters) and variometer (cm/s)'), and identifies the source ('from the barometer'). This uniquely identifies the tool among many get_* siblings, as it specifically targets altitude and variometer data.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. However, the tool is simple and its purpose is obvious: call it to obtain current altitude and variometer readings. The lack of alternatives mentioned is acceptable given the tool's straightforward nature, but it stays at an implied usage level.

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