GPS Position

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, providing a strong safety profile. The description adds useful context about supported GPS interfaces and the fixed unit ID, enhancing transparency beyond annotations.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence covers purpose and output fields; the second specifies compatibility and constant. No unnecessary words.

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 full schema coverage, existing output schema, and annotations, the description is fully adequate. It covers the tool's purpose, data returned, device compatibility, and important constant (unit ID).

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal parameter-specific information (only the unit ID note). Baseline score of 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'GPS position data', enumerating specific data fields. It implicitly distinguishes from numerous sibling tools (e.g., victron_battery_status, victron_inverter_status) by focusing exclusively on GPS 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 specifies compatible GPS device types (USB GPS NMEA 0183, NMEA 2000) and the unit ID constant. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but given the sibling set, the context is clear.

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