proj_get_active_variant

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape and the sentinel "[No Variations]" for the empty case, and implies a side-effect-free read, but says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or what happens with an invalid project_path.

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 with the purpose, then Args/Returns. The docstring scaffolding is slightly heavier than needed but every line carries information and there is no filler.

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 one-parameter read getter, this is essentially complete: default resolution and the empty-case return are both covered. An output schema already exists, so the extra Returns section is a bonus rather than a necessity.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate — and it does: it explains that project_path is optional and that None falls back to the active project. That is exactly the missing semantic the bare `anyOf[string, null]` schema cannot convey.

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 and resource ("Get the currently active project variant") that an agent can map cleanly onto the sibling family (proj_list_variants, proj_set_active_variant, proj_create_variant). It does not explicitly name what distinguishes it from those siblings, but the read-only single-variant scope is unambiguous.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternatives. Usage is only implied by the word "active" — the agent must infer this is for checking which variant is currently applied rather than enumerating them.

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