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 burden. It only states the action without disclosing possible edge cases (e.g., return null or error when no active project) or performance characteristics. The description is minimally transparent.

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 sentence that is direct and to the point. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no waste.

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 that there are no parameters and the tool is simple, the description is mostly complete. However, it could optionally mention the return type or behavior when no project is active, especially since an output schema exists but is not detailed in the input schema input.

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?

There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter meaning. A score of 4 is appropriate given the absence of parameters.

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 clearly states 'Return the currently active project' with a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like 'activate_project' (which sets the active project) and 'list_projects' (which lists all projects).

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 to retrieve the current active project, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions (e.g., what happens if no project is active). It is adequate for a simple getter but could be more informative.

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