get_current_rig

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the read spans routing, parallel mix, and block chain, which hints at the breadth of the payload, but it does not discuss cost, size, or failure behavior for an unloaded rig. Useful but thin beyond the annotations.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler that front-loads the resource and then lists exactly what comes back. Every clause carries information.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and zero parameters mean no input semantics are owed. Read-only annotations cover the mutation risk. Only the absence of sibling routing guidance keeps it from full marks.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed by referring only to "the loaded rig".

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 gives a specific verb ("Get") and resource ("the loaded rig") and enumerates what is returned: name, routing, parallel mix, and block chain. The word "loaded" implicitly separates it from list_rigs and get_rig_spec_format, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase "the loaded rig". There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus list_rigs (which presumably enumerates available rigs) or get_rig_spec_format, and no prerequisites are mentioned. An agent can infer the intent but is given no routing guidance.

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