read_gps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only (MSP_RAW_GPS, no reboot)', revealing the safe, non-destructive nature and lack of reboot side effects. This goes beyond what structured fields provide and is essential for agent decision-making.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first line summarizes the tool's output, the second line adds safety context, and the third gives usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite having no output schema or annotations, the description is complete for a simple read tool. It specifies the data returned (fix type, satellites, position, speed, HDOP, nav-readiness), the read-only nature, and the appropriate usage context. Given the complexity is low, this fully covers the agent's needs.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description correctly omits parameter details, as there are none to document. No further meaning is needed.

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 identifies the tool as reading live GPS status, enumerating specific data fields (fix type, satellites, position, speed, HDOP, nav-readiness). The verb 'read' is implied and the resource is unambiguous, distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on other functions.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this before relying on RTH or any position-holding navigation mode.' It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, which would earn a 5.

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