get_all_open_positions

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

Discloses parallel execution, automatic retrieval of all VPS and MT5 terminals, and the return format with error handling for unreachable VPS. No annotations exist, so the description adequately covers behavioral traits, though it could mention potential rate limits or authentication.

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 concise at ~5 sentences, with each sentence adding relevant information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the structure could be slightly improved for readability (e.g., bullet points).

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 tool with an output schema, the description provides complete context: it explains the return format as a nested dict, error handling for unreachable VPS, and the scope (all VPS and terminals). No missing information for correct invocation.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage. The description confirms no input is needed ('non serve specificare nulla'). No additional parameter semantics are required beyond what the schema already states.

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 clearly states the tool reads open positions from all VPS in the address book in parallel. It specifies the action ('legge'), the resource ('posizioni aperte su TUTTE le VPS in rubrica'), and distinguishes it from the sibling get_open_positions by indicating it provides a complete overview.

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?

Explicitly says to use this tool instead of get_open_positions when a complete overview of all monitored accounts is needed. Provides a clear alternative and context for usage.

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