get_active_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not what 'active' means (session context? default? current org selection?), not whether it can fail when no project is active, and not what shape the result takes.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the brevity is under-specification rather than economy: the single phrase merely echoes the tool name and earns no additional place in the agent's decision process.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is the only source of context — and it omits the one thing that matters here, namely the definition of 'active project' and its failure/precondition behavior. It is insufficient for a zero-argument contextual getter surrounded by overlapping siblings.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to explain about inputs. No penalty applies here, though there is also no opportunity to add value.

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 verb ('Get') and a resource ('active project'), which is better than a bare restatement of the name. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool get_project (or from get_active_organization), leaving the agent to guess what 'active' means or how this differs from a plain project fetch.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_project, get_active_organization, or list_projects. The only hint is the word 'active' in the name itself, which forces the agent to infer the routing condition rather than being told it.

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