mistral_get_workdir

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it returns the path and status, which goes beyond the annotations, though it does not specify what 'status' includes or describe error behavior.

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 consists of a single, seven-word sentence: 'Show current work directory path and status.' Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy.

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 the zero-parameter input and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's straightforward purpose. It states what is shown (path and status) and relies on the output schema for detailed return structure.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema coverage is trivially 100% and no parameter descriptions are needed. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds nothing about parameters because there are none.

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 uses the specific verb 'Show' and clearly identifies the resource as 'current work directory path and status,' distinguishing it from the sibling tool mistral_set_workdir. While 'status' is somewhat vague, the core purpose is unmistakable.

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 the tool is used to retrieve the current work directory, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives such as mistral_set_workdir. Usage context is self-evident for a simple getter, but no formal guidance is provided.

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