get_default_paths

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains default resolution from cwd, optional env seeding, and redirect mechanisms, which is valuable context beyond the tool name. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, but the getter name and content make that inferable.

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 four short sentences with no filler. The first sentence summarizes what is returned, and the following sentences add concrete path and redirection details that an agent needs.

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?

For a no-parameter getter with an output schema, the description covers the default root, env override, redirect options, and subdirectory layout. It does not fully define 'style ref' or enumerate all common subdirs, but the information provided is sufficient for correct use.

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 and 100% schema coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description appropriately focuses on behavior and return contents rather than parameters.

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 identifies the resource as the active output root, style ref, and common subdirs, and the name confirms it returns default path information. It is distinguishable from get_output_root because it covers more than just the root, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with that sibling.

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 explains when the default applies and how to redirect output via set_output_root or output_dir, which gives useful context. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over get_output_root or set_output_root, leaving some inference to the agent.

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