Show active project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states it reports the current project, making it clear this is a read-only operation, but it does not disclose what happens when no project is selected (e.g., returns null or errors), nor does it specify the return format (ID, name, etc.). This is minimal but not misleading.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to its purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 low complexity (zero parameters, simple getter), the description is mostly complete. It clearly states what the tool does, but since there is no output schema, it would be slightly better to specify the exact return value (e.g., project ID or name). Still, it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema is trivially complete. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline of 4 applies. No additional parameter information is required.

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 tool's action: 'Report which Overleaf project is currently selected.' It uses a specific verb (report) and resource (current project), distinguishing it from siblings like overleaf_list_projects and overleaf_select_project.

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 you need to know the current selection) but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like list_projects or select_project. It does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites, so it relies on implied context.

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