get_machine_position

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, whether it requires an active machine connection, or what happens if the machine is offline. For a read operation in a machine control context, this omission is significant, though the action ('Get') implies it's likely non-destructive.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. Every word earns its place: 'Get' specifies the action, 'current machine and work positions' defines the scope, and '(X, Y, Z)' adds precision without redundancy. There's no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It explains the purpose and output data but lacks context on usage, behavioral traits, or integration with siblings. For a tool in a machine control server with many siblings, more guidance would be helpful, but the simplicity of the operation keeps it from being incomplete.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's output semantics (positions in X, Y, Z). This adds value beyond the schema by clarifying what data is returned, though it doesn't detail the return format (e.g., units, coordinate system).

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current machine and work positions'), including the coordinate dimensions (X, Y, Z). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_machine_state' or 'get_work_coordinate_offset' by focusing specifically on positional data rather than general state or offset values. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar siblings, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active connection), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_machine_state' (which might include position) or 'get_work_coordinate_offset' (which relates to work coordinates). Without such context, users must infer usage from the name alone.

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