get_gps_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral details. It lists output fields but fails to disclose important traits such as whether the tool returns a snapshot vs. streaming, if it blocks until a fix is obtained, or what happens if GPS is unavailable. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the purpose. It efficiently lists fields with units, though adding structure (e.g., bullet points) could improve scanability.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately lists the returned data fields. However, it lacks context on output format or behavior (e.g., real-time vs. cached), which would be useful given the large number of sibling tools.

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, so the description is not required to add parameter semantics. Schema coverage is 100%, achieving the baseline score of 3.

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 retrieves GPS data and enumerates specific fields (fix status, satellite count, lat/lon, altitude, ground speed) with units. It distinguishes itself from sibling get_gps_* tools (which are configuration parameters) by focusing on live 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?

The description implies usage for obtaining current GPS readings, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_altitude or other GPS-related tools. No guidance on prerequisites (e.g., GPS must be connected) or when not to use it.

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