get_working_directory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It states the tool prints the working directory and returns the absolute path, but does not explicitly disclose that it is read-only or any potential side effects (e.g., if agent_id is invalid). The description is adequate but lacks explicit safety cues.

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 extremely concise: three short sentences with the first sentence stating the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without verbosity.

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 that an output schema exists (as noted in context), the description appropriately explains the return value. The tool is simple, and the description covers the essential function. However, the missing explanation of the agent_id parameter slightly reduces completeness.

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 input schema has one required parameter (agent_id) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what agent_id represents or how to use it, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions. This is a significant gap.

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 'Print' and the resource 'current working directory' with the scope 'of the agent process'. It is distinct from sibling tools like change_directory and list_directory.

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 includes a usage example ('Usage: pwd') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It provides minimal context for decision-making.

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