review_positions

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses that the tool flags positions and provides consciousness checks, declares it informational (not advice), but does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, modifies data, or requires specific permissions. This leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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 coherent but includes extraneous philosophical references ('disposition effect,' 'thesis changed?') that, while insightful, add length without necessary operational detail. It could be tightened to front-load the essential function.

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 (2 parameters, no required params) and existence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, behavioral nudges, and boundaries. It could be more complete by noting that flagged positions are returned, but the output schema handles that. Overall good context.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema; it focuses on overall purpose. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: reviewing open positions for loss discipline by flagging those past a loss threshold. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_positions' by adding the loss discipline check and behavioral context, making its unique value clear.

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 use for loss discipline review but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks directives like 'use this when you want to identify positions needing deliberate decisions' and does not mention when to prefer other tools.

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