get_gps_sbas_integrity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It notes the type (UINT8) and default (OFF), but does not explain the effect of changing the value or any side effects.

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 but somewhat redundant: 'Get gps_sbas_integrity' repeats the tool name. The type and default are useful but could be integrated more smoothly.

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 simple parameter read with no parameters or output schema, the description provides basic purpose and type info. However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., ON/OFF or numeric 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 no parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable.

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 that the tool is used to get the gps_sbas_integrity parameter, which controls whether SBAS integrity data is required. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_gps_sbas_mode and set_gps_sbas_integrity.

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?

While the description indicates the tool is a getter for a parameter, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide guidance on context or prerequisites.

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