test_get_active

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a directory path and that agents can interact with files there. It does not detail how 'active' is determined, but for a simple getter, this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and clear guidance. Every sentence adds value without waste.

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 tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains the output and permissible actions. Could mention edge cases like no active project, but still adequate.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. No additional parameter info is needed.

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 'get', the resource 'active test project directory and .mob test cases', and the purpose 'discover the project path and available tests'. It distinguishes from siblings like test_list_projects and test_run.

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 provides context: 'Use this to discover the project path and available tests' and hints at subsequent actions. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus siblings like test_list_projects.

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