code_workspace_get_active_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the core function (get active run if exists), but does not disclose error handling (invalid workspace_id), return format details (though output schema may cover), or any side effects. The minimal description lacks behavioral depth for a tool with no annotation support.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Every word serves a purpose, efficiently conveying the tool's function.

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 (1 param) and the existence of an output schema, the description is adequate but could be more complete by explicitly stating that the tool returns null if no active run exists. It covers the primary behavior but leaves minor ambiguity for error cases.

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 description links workspace_id to 'workspace', adding context beyond the schema's bare title. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it does not elaborate on workspace_id's origin, format, or constraints. It provides minimal but helpful semantic connection.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Get', resource 'active coding run', and scope 'for a workspace', with the conditional 'if one exists' to indicate possible null result. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like code_workspace_get_run (by ID) and code_workspace_runs (list all runs).

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 by specifying 'active' run, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like code_workspace_get_run or code_workspace_runs. There is no guidance on exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name.

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