tool-active

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Report', which implies a non-mutating read operation, but doesn't state whether it has side effects, what happens if no tool is active, or if it requires a specific context. It doesn't mention any limitations or edge cases, leaving significant ambiguity.

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, concise sentence that gets straight to the point. It is appropriately sized, though it could benefit from a bit more detail without becoming verbose. The structure is clean and easy to parse.

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 (2 optional params, no output schema), the description is minimal but incomplete. It doesn't explain what the report contains, the expected format, or how the parameters alter the output. There are many sibling tools related to tool management, but no contextual guidance to differentiate or provide usage context. Agents may not know what to expect from the invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no detail about the parameters. The schema provides titles for each parameter (e.g., 'Optional mode, e.g. OBJECT or EDIT_MESH'), which is some help, but the description doesn't explain how these parameters affect the report or what values are valid. With no required parameters and no enums, the description should clarify the meaning and default behavior, which it fails to do.

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 states the verb 'Report' and the resource 'active workspace tool', clearly indicating it provides information about the current tool. It also specifies the context ('for an editor/mode'), which helps distinguish it from other reporting tools. However, it doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from similar tools like 'tool-set' or 'tool-settings'.

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 for querying the active tool, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. other tool-related commands. There is no mention of alternatives or scenarios where this should not be used. The optional parameters (mode, area_type) hint at querying in different contexts, but no specific examples are given.

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