current_ride

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description's 'never starts, ends, or alters' reinforces that profile but adds no new behavioral detail such as auth requirements, rate limits, or output format, so it only modestly exceeds the structured data.

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 that front-loads the action and resource, then immediately scopes the behavior. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 no parameters, existing output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly. It states both what is returned and that the operation is non-mutating.

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 per the rubric. The description appropriately avoids inventing parameter semantics where none 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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('current ride status only'), and immediately clarifies it does not start, end, or alter a ride. This distinguishes it from mutation-oriented siblings such as ride_order and from broader read tools like ride_detail or list_rides.

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 gives clear context ('current ride status only') and an explicit when-not clause ('never starts, ends, or alters a ride'). However, it does not name alternative tools for related reads, which keeps it short of the explicit when/when-not/alternatives requirement for a 5.

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