position_list

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

With no annotations supplied, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it does add useful return-shape context: each record includes criteria-as-of-entry, current criteria, and a criteria_changed_since_entry flag. However, it says nothing about whether results are ordered, paginated, capped, or filtered, which matters for a 'list all' tool.

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 definition is short and front-loaded, but it opens with the unexplained 'T0/T1' token that consumes attention without adding usable meaning. The remainder is a single dense clause rather than a clearly structured statement of what is returned.

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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description covers what each record contains but omits result volume, ordering, and any scoping behavior, which an agent would want before calling on a large dataset. It is minimally adequate rather than 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not misrepresent the parameterless nature of the call.

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 phrase 'All recorded positions' does convey a listing of every position and implicitly contrasts with single-item retrieval like position_get, but the leading token 'T0/T1' is opaque jargon that never clarifies the tool's purpose. There is no explicit statement that this is an unfiltered list versus a filtered one.

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 offers no explicit when-to-use guidance and does not name or reference the sibling alternatives (position_get, position_open) that an agent must choose between. Any routing decision is left entirely to inference from the name.

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