get_bot_position_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it reads a file and returns specific fields, which is useful but does not significantly extend the behavioral profile. The description is consistent with annotations and adds moderate context.

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 two sentences long, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the function and return values, and providing usage context. No wasted words, and it is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description reasonably explains the return values. It also provides essential context relative to a sibling tool. However, it could mention that the tool is safe and idempotent (though annotations cover that) or potential error conditions. Still, for a simple read tool, it is largely 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate by explaining the 'bot_id' parameter. However, it provides no additional meaning beyond what the enum schema already shows. The agent must infer the parameter's role from the tool name and description, which is a missed opportunity.

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 'Read' and the resource 'persisted position state file for a bot'. It lists the returned fields and explicitly distinguishes itself from 'get_positions' via comparison for drift detection. This makes it easy to understand exactly what the tool does and how it differs from siblings.

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 tells when to use the tool ('internal bot tracking') and provides a comparison to 'Tradovate get_positions()' for drift detection, which serves as a clear alternative. This gives the agent unambiguous guidance on tool selection.

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