gps-coordinates

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action and target, but does not explain output format, behavior when no GPS data exists, or any side effects. For a read-only extraction tool, this is a minimal disclosure.

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 a single, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and avoids redundancy with the schema.

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?

The tool has a nested object schema, no annotations, and no output schema. The description provides minimal context about input requirements or return value. Given the complexity of the image parameter and the lack of annotation support, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke reliably.

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 schema provides an 'image' object with properties (url, data, kind, path, buffer) but zero description coverage. The tool description adds only that the image is a source of metadata, without explaining the accepted input formats or how to specify the image. This is insufficient compensation for the 0% schema coverage.

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 explicitly states the tool extracts GPS coordinates (latitude/longitude) from image metadata. The verb 'Extract' and the specific resource (GPS coordinates) clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read-exif or read-metadata which target broader metadata.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool compared to read-exif or read-metadata. The description does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or preferred use cases.

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