get_tool_position

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

Without annotations, the description shoulders full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the return values (x, y, z, possibly e) and the error condition when unsupported. It does not mention side effects, implying read-only behavior, which is sufficient.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence followed by detailed return info and usage contexts. It is slightly verbose but front-loads the key purpose. Could be more concise in the return description.

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 no output schema, the description fully covers the return format (dict with x, y, z, optionally e) and the error case. It also explains units and calibration prerequisites, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

There are no parameters, so the parameter semantics dimension has a baseline of 4. The description adds value by detailing the returned coordinate keys and units, which goes beyond the empty schema.

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 gets the nozzle/tool-head XYZ position, using specific verbs and resource references. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a simple positional query, unlike many other tools that perform actions or analyses.

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 explicitly lists when to use the tool (verifying homing, calibration, move planning) and notes that not all adapters support it, implying when not to use. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools for positional data.

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