current_technology

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Report,' implying a read-only operation, but offers no detail on what happens if no technology is selected, what the output looks like, or any side effects. This is minimal disclosure for a state-reading tool.

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 one short sentence and easy to parse. The opening '(Optional / Legacy)' adds useful status context but is slightly ambiguous; still, there is no wordiness and the main verb is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description states its function clearly and flags its legacy status. An agent can invoke it without knowing parameter names; the only missing detail is the exact return shape, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 required list, so there is nothing to document; the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable given no parameters exist.

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 verb ('Report') and a well-defined resource ('the currently selected technology in session state'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like choose_technology (selection) and discover_technologies (discovery). It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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 tags the tool as 'Optional / Legacy,' hinting it is not the preferred entry point, but it never states when to call this tool versus choose_technology or discover_technologies, nor does it list exclusions or prerequisites. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and sibling context.

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