gsa_output_num_elem_pos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only restates the operation. It does not state whether this is a pure read, what the returned count refers to, or any precondition (e.g. output stage/data must exist).

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no waste, which is structurally fine. But it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely efficient.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be re-explained, but a documented required parameter and any usage context are missing. For a query tool in a large ambiguous family, this is incomplete.

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% and the single required parameter 'entity_id' is never mentioned in the description. With a required parameter whose meaning (element or member id) is undocumented in both schema and description, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb ('Return number of') and a resource ('element/member result positions'), so the operation is identifiable. However, 'positions' is domain jargon and it offers no differentiation from closely related siblings such as gsa_output_1d_elem_pos or gsa_memb_num_elem.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many other gsa_output_* siblings, and no prerequisites or context for the call are given. The agent must infer the usage entirely from the name and the crowded sibling list.

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