app_get_active_document

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does deliver a genuinely non-obvious caveat: the 'modified' flag is unreliable, so false is a floor rather than proof of a clean file. It also documents the empty-dict edge case when no document is active. It stops short of stating that the call is side-effect free or whether an attach/session is required, which would complete the picture.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact field list, with the important caveat placed on the field it qualifies. The returns block partially duplicates the existing output schema, but the items earn their place by adding semantics (especially the 'modified' reliability note) rather than restating types.

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 zero-argument getter with an output schema, the definition covers purpose, return shape, the unreliable-flag caveat, and the no-active-document case. The one gap is environmental context — whether the caller must be attached to an app instance and what happens across schematic/PCB/library contexts.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed and cannot mislead about them.

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+resource: fetch info about the currently focused document, and enumerates the returned fields. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings that also surface document context (app_list_documents, obj_get_document_info, proj_get_focused), so an agent must infer which to pick.

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?

Usage is only implied by the name and the phrase 'currently active (focused) document'; there is no explicit 'use this when X, use app_list_documents when Y'. The classic drop-in case exists (resolving what the user is looking at), but the agent has to reason it out.

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