fusion_active_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Inspect' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it disclose behavior when no active command exists or what the return format is. The description is too sparse for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource. There is no wasted wording, making it optimally concise.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks details on what constitutes an 'active command dialog' in Fusion, what 'current inputs' refers to, and what the response structure will be. It is minimally adequate but leaves room for agent uncertainty.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description does not add any parameter information, but none is needed given there are no parameters to document.

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 clearly states the verb 'inspect' and the specific resource 'active command dialog', along with what is inspected ('current inputs'). It is distinguishable from generic siblings like fusion_inspect because it targets the active command dialog specifically, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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 usage when there is an active command dialog to inspect, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. The context of 'active' suggests a prerequisite, but it is not elaborated.

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