capacities_get_current_object

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key dependency (desktop app running), the scope (currently open object), and the specific return fields (URL, title, name). It does not mention error cases like no object being open, but for a read-only info tool this is reasonable.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is low complexity with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers what it returns and the key external prerequisite (desktop app running), which is sufficient for this simple tool.

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 the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. The schema already confirms no parameters, so this is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get information') and identifies the resource ('currently open object in Capacities desktop app'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like capacities_get_space_info and capacities_get_object_types by focusing on the current object in the desktop app context.

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 states the tool is for the currently open object in the desktop app and explicitly says 'Requires desktop app to be running,' which is a clear usage prerequisite. It does not mention alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear for this simple getter.

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