Get All Glyph Positions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a read operation ('Get'), so it is likely non-destructive. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or what happens if data is unavailable. The description is adequate but minimal.

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 wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It could be improved by specifying the format of the facing direction (e.g., compass directions or angles), but the current description covers the essential information for a simple read operation.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds value by listing the five glyph names, clarifying what positions are returned. This exceeds the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools.

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 states the tool 'gets the current facing direction of all 5 glyphs' and lists the specific glyph names (cleanse, quest, battle, banner, reinforce), which distinguishes it from siblings like tower_get_glyph (singular) and tower_glyphs_facing. It provides a specific verb and resource.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tower_get_glyph for a single glyph or tower_glyphs_facing for a different orientation. Agents have no information about usage context or exclusion criteria.

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