aprs_position

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the API-first behavior, fallback to APRS-IS stream listening, and dependency on the timeout parameter for the fallback path. This is meaningful context that helps the agent anticipate latency or failure modes. Minor omission: what happens if the API is configured but fails.

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 clear purpose sentence plus two sentences for the fallback logic. Front-loaded with the main action, no filler or redundant detail.

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 two-parameter tool with complete schema coverage and an output schema, the description adequately explains the core behavior, fallback logic, and timeout edge case. A slight ambiguity about API failure fallback prevents a 5, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds contextual color about the timeout in the stream-listening mode, but it does not introduce meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('last known position(s) of a callsign'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like aprs_send_message or aprs_listen. The first sentence fully captures the tool's function.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool (when you need a callsign's last known position) and provides context about the two execution modes based on APRSFI_API_KEY configuration. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the overview makes the use case obvious.

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