get_pos_by_set

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation but does not state side effects, required document state, failure modes, or what 'list/para/pos set' means behaviorally. The description adds little beyond the basic purpose.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and the parameter explanation immediately following. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 simple getter with one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient: it names the purpose and the doc_id source. However, it lacks usage context and behavioral details, which leaves some ambiguity around when this tool should be chosen over similar position-related siblings.

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 schema provides no description coverage for doc_id beyond its type, but the description adds a meaningful hint: 'Document ID from open_document.' This compensates partially by identifying the expected source of the parameter, though it does not explain formats or how to obtain the ID beyond that.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Get current cursor position as list/para/pos set.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and gives a useful output shape. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_cursor_position or get_selected_pos_by_set, which keeps it from a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_cursor_position, set_pos_by_set, or get_selected_pos_by_set. There is no mention of prerequisites or context beyond doc_id. This is essentially no usage guidance.

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