get_mag_declination

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data type (INT16), valid range (-300 to 300), and default value (0), plus a prerequisite. It does not explicitly state it's read-only, but the 'get' prefix implies it. Minor gap but overall transparent.

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 and front-loaded, containing the purpose, prerequisite, and value specification in a few lines. The repeated name prefix is slightly redundant but does not significantly harm conciseness.

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 a simple getter nature, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: what it retrieves, the prerequisite, and the value characteristics. It could explicitly note it is a read operation, but the 'get' prefix suffices.

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, and schema description coverage is 100%. Baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific value, but none is needed. The range info is about the return value, not input 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 clearly states the tool retrieves the magnetic declination correction for the user's location. It distinguishes itself from many sibling 'get_' tools by specifying its unique purpose, though the name repetition is minor.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires: USE_MAG') but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_mag_declination or get_mag_hardware. Usage context is only implied.

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