get_altitude_prefer_baro

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates this is a read operation, specifies the return range (0-100) and default (100), and explains the meaning of endpoints. No side effects are hinted, which is appropriate for a getter.

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 extremely concise: two sentences conveying the purpose, range, and default in a structured format. No superfluous words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no output schema, no parameters), the description is fairly complete. It explains the value semantics and constraints. Minor improvement could mention the corresponding setter, but it's not essential.

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 no input parameters, so the schema provides no information. The description fully compensates by explaining the meaning of the retrieved value, its range, and default, which is exactly what an agent needs to interpret the output.

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 it retrieves the 'altitude_prefer_baro' value and explains what it represents (weight given to barometer vs GPS altitude). It distinguishes itself from other altitude getters by specifying its unique meaning.

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 implicitly suggests using this tool to check the current baro/GPS preference weighting, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings like get_altitude or get_altitude_source. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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