Get position detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful return-content detail, but it does not disclose pagination/truncation behavior despite supporting page and max_chars parameters.

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 that lists the returned sections without obvious filler. It is dense but appropriately sized, though the long colon-delimited list makes it slightly run-on.

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 full schema coverage and useful annotations, the description supplies the missing return-content picture by naming the detail sections and attempt weights. It omits pagination/default behavior, but that is documented in the schema, leaving only a minor gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents name, role, sections, page, and max_chars. The description repeats the role and section concepts but adds no syntax or defaults beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies the resource as one BJJ position and enumerates the detail returned (overview, principles, decisions, drills, menu, related positions, clips). It is specific enough to distinguish this as a detail-retrieval tool, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as bjj_get_technique or bjj_position_options.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus bjj_position_options, bjj_search, or bjj_get_technique. Usage is only implied by 'Detail for one position,' with no exclusions or alternative-routing instructions.

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