get_all_positions

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the return format (JSON) and does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires permissions, or if there are any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's action, scope, and output format.

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?

Given that there are no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is sufficient. It specifies what the tool does ('retrieves all current positions'), the scope ('in the portfolio'), and the return format ('as JSON'), which is complete for a simple read-only listing tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers 100% of parameters. The baseline of 4 applies since there is no parameter information to add; the description correctly focuses on what the tool returns.

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 verb 'Retrieves' and the resource 'all current positions in the portfolio', making it distinct from singular siblings like get_open_position and portfolio history tools. The 'all' and 'current' wording provides specific scope.

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?

The description implies use when a complete snapshot of current positions is needed, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives such as get_open_position for a single position. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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