vw_list_positions

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: it aggregates devices by position, reports a count of devices with no position, and flags device position names that have no matching position object — that last bit is a data-quality disclosure an agent couldn't guess from annotations or schema.

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?

Three compact clauses, each carrying distinct information: what counts as a position, device association, and the two diagnostic reports. Slightly dense parenthetical enumeration but no wasted text.

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?

For a read-only listing tool with annotations and one param, the description covers outputs conceptually but not the include_devices toggle, and with no output schema the agent has only prose to infer the return shape. Adequate but with clear gaps given output schema is absent.

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 0% and there is one boolean parameter, include_devices, defaulting true. The description never explains what setting it false does (presumably skips the device lists and returns just positions), which is the one parameter-level nuance an agent would need. Baseline 3 applies for a single param, but the gap is real.

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 (list) and resource (lighting positions), and enumerates exactly what object types count as positions (Light Position Obj, Lighting Pipe, Ladder, Truss, Hanging Position). This distinguishes it clearly from the device-oriented siblings like vw_list_lighting_devices and vw_lighting_device_report.

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 usage through its content (you get positions plus the devices naming them), but never says when to prefer this over vw_list_lighting_devices or vw_lighting_device_report. The relationship to those siblings is inferable but not explicit.

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