mnemosyne_position_get

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden and meets it: it declares read-only behavior ('it queries memory and writes nothing') and discloses the critical edge-case trait that a missing record returns plain words instead of an error, so 'never recorded' and 'call failed' are distinguishable. This is richer than the typical skeletal description.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then progresses through behavior, return values, edge case, and usage guidance in a logical order. Each sentence earns its place; the only minor waste is 'Read-only' followed by 'writes nothing', which is trivial given the density of useful information.

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?

With no output schema present, the description correctly supplies the return contract by enumerating the returned fields. It also covers the no-record behavior, read-only safety, and prerequisite tool routing, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%: the single resonance_id parameter is already documented with concrete examples ('agent-cockpit', 'mnemosync-p2p'). The description adds domain context about what a saved position contains but no new syntax or format guidance, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Read the last saved position of one Resonance'), enumerates exactly what is returned (resonance id, saved time, chronicle spineType, whole note), and is clearly distinguishable from the sibling write counterpart mnemosyne_position_update. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 states when to use it ('Use it to resume work'), names the prerequisite call ('call mnemosyne_resonance_list first when you do not know the id'), and tells the agent the tool routes to mnemosyne_position_update on a never-recorded id. No inference is required.

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