hcm_get_position

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation, and the description does not contradict it. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context, such as return shape, error behavior, or scope of the returned position, so it contributes minimal transparency beyond the annotation.

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 five words with no filler and front-loads the core operation. For a simple get-by-id tool with a single parameter, this is appropriately sized and every word earns its place.

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 single required parameter and the readOnly annotation, the description is nearly sufficient. However, since there is no output schema, it omits any indication of what the returned position contains or how failures like not-found are handled, leaving a small but real gap for an agent invoking the tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only echoes the notion of 'id' without explaining what positionId represents, where it comes from, or whether alternate identifiers are accepted. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds little beyond the schema itself.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Get position by id.' The 'by id' qualifier broadly distinguishes it from hcm_search_positions, but it does not explicitly name the sibling or describe scope, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hcm_search_positions. The only hint is that an id is needed, which is already obvious from the required positionId parameter; no exclusions or sibling routing are provided.

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