get-position

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

No annotations are present, so the description must communicate safety and side effects. It doesn't explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it describe the return format, coordinate system, or units. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for a tool with no output 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?

The description is a single sentence, extremely concise, and contains no filler. It effectively communicates the core action.

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 simplicity of the tool (no params, no annotations), the description is adequate but leaves the return value unspecified. There is no output schema to compensate, so the agent still doesn't know what the response will look like. Slightly more detail about the format would be beneficial.

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 and an empty schema, making parameter semantics trivial. The baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameter information is needed.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource ('current position of the bot'). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'get-status' or 'look-around', which suggest different concerns, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given about when this tool should be used versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites or contexts where this is preferred. The description only states the function.

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