get_position

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the broadcast behavior ('broadcasts get no responses back') and clarifies the value is a desired, not measured, position. However, it doesn't describe error cases, whether a missing motor produces failure, or the response shape beyond naming 'position'.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, with the parameter contract following logically. The firmware-command reference bracket adds minor noise but the overall structure is efficient for the information delivered.

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?

The definition covers the core needs for a single-parameter read tool: purpose, parameter formats, and the return value. But with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves response details and error behavior unspecified, and it doesn't point the agent to the richer sibling get_comprehensive_position for actual-plus-desired position in one call.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it fully explains the motor parameter's accepted forms (alias number, 16-hex-digit ID, or 'all' broadcast) plus the broadcast no-response caveat. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare string type in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the current desired position') and adds a distinguishing clause — that it may differ from the actual hall-sensor position. This maps directly to the sibling get_hall_sensor_position, so an agent can tell them apart without opening the schemas.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you want the commanded/desired position rather than the measured one) via the hall-sensor contrast, but it never names an alternative explicitly or gives a when-not-to-use condition. It also doesn't differentiate from get_comprehensive_position or get_status, leaving selection partially to inference.

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