get_tendon_position_result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the read-only getter semantics, such as coordinate frame, units, or what happens if the tendon name does not 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?

Very short and front-loaded: one purpose line plus one parameter gloss. No redundant prose, and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description does not explain what is returned (coordinate values, units, format) or when results become available. An agent can call the tool but cannot confidently interpret or validate the result.

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. It clarifies that 'name' means 'Tendon name (钢束名)', which resolves the parameter's role, but it does not explain how names must match existing tendons or any format constraints. Minimal but acceptable for one simple string parameter.

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 'Get' and a specific resource 'tendon position/coordinate results', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tendon result getters like get_tendon_loss_results and get_tendon_length_result. The Chinese gloss reinforces the meaning without ambiguity.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance or alternatives. An agent is not told when to pick this over get_tendon_info, get_tendon_length_result, or get_tendon_loss_results, nor whether an analysis or model must exist first.

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