mnemosyne_position_get

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the exact return fields and the distinctive unknown-id behavior: a plain-words response that names the update tool, so a blank history is distinguishable from a failed call. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 purposeful sentences front-load the operation and read-only nature, then add return details and fallback behavior. Every clause earns its place, with the alternative routing placed at the end.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies what the response contains and how the one edge case behaves. An agent has everything needed to decide when to call it and to interpret the result correctly.

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 input schema fully documents the single required resonance_id parameter with an example, so the schema carries the parameter-meaning burden. The description reinforces that the id selects a prior saved resonance but adds no new parameter syntax or format details.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Read where one resonance was left,' then enumerates what is returned. It differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly referencing mnemosyne_position_update and mnemosyne_resonance_list as related alternatives.

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 explicitly routes the agent to mnemosyne_resonance_list when the id is unknown, and explains that a missing-id response points to mnemosyne_position_update. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance beyond the read-only positioning.

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