Read the active project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds context beyond annotations by defining the active project as the one every other tool reports on, clarifying what the returned value represents without contradicting the annotations.

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 each carry distinct value: the first defines the resource, the second gives the exact call condition. No filler, front-loaded with the core meaning.

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 read-only, zero-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the active project is and when to use this call. It does not spell out the response shape, but the name and title imply the project object is returned, and the annotations handle the safety profile.

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 an empty schema, so there is no parameter burden for the description. Per the rubric, zero parameters warrants a baseline of 4.

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 makes clear that this tool retrieves the project that all other tools are currently reporting on, which is specific and contextually distinct from siblings like list_projects and select_project. The verb is only implicit in the tool name and title, but the resource and scope are 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?

The description explicitly instructs when to call it: 'Call this when unsure which project the numbers in this conversation refer to.' This is a direct, actionable usage guideline that distinguishes it from alternatives by function.

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