get_position

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does useful work: it discloses the required capability, guarantees mm units, and warns that unreported axes are omitted. It does not describe the return structure or ordering, but the key output semantics are covered.

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?

Three short sentences with no waste. The prerequisite is front-loaded, followed by what the tool returns and the unit/omission caveats.

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 zero-parameter read getter with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: capability gate, units, and missing-axis behavior. It could go further by mentioning the shape of returned coordinates or connection prerequisites, but it is largely sufficient.

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 there is nothing parameter-level to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids discussing nonexistent inputs.

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 a specific resource and scope: current machine and workpiece coordinates, always in mm. This clearly distinguishes a live position read from saved positions, though it does not explicitly name the sibling `get_saved_positions`.

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?

It supplies a prerequisite (`Requires capability "state"`) but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like `get_saved_positions` or `get_state_snapshot`. Usage is implied by 'current' coordinates rather than stated.

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