show_current_iteration

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'view' and 'ASCII view' imply a read-only operation, which is helpful. But it does not clarify whether the tool emits the result directly, how 'resolved' works, or what happens when no current iteration exists.

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, tightly written sentence with no filler. The output type and intended audience are front-loaded, and every part earns its place.

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 tool with one optional parameter, the description is workable, but it omits details about exact return content, resolution behavior, and edge cases such as a missing current iteration or invalid plan_path. Since there is no output schema, the description alone must carry more of that burden.

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 one parameter plan_path is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the 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 identifies a specific resource ('the resolved current iteration') and a specific output form ('ASCII view'), with a clear audience ('humans/logs'). This implies a distinct purpose from the sibling get_current_iteration, though it never explicitly names or contrasts that alternative.

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 parenthetical '(humans/logs)' gives an implicit usage signal: use this for human-readable display or log output rather than programmatic retrieval. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative such as get_current_iteration, leaving some selection work to inference.

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