get_gps_provider

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

Without annotations, the description discloses that the return is a UINT8 with a default of UBLOX. It does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, but the context implies it. Slightly above minimal 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: one sentence plus a bracketed note. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every part adds value.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and the simplicity of the tool (a simple getter), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the purpose, the type, and gives a usage hint. Missing only explicit list of possible values.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining what the return value represents (protocol type) and its default, which goes beyond the empty 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 clearly states it retrieves the GPS protocol setting (gps_provider) and provides context about UBLOX vs NMEA. It distinguishes from numerous sibling get_ and set_ tools by specifying the exact resource and providing a recommendation.

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?

It explicitly recommends preferring UBLOX for UBlox modules, which guides the agent on which value to set or check. However, it does not explicitly indicate when to use this tool over alternatives; the guidance is about the value itself, not tool selection.

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