altair_get_current_process

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates the tool reads XML (non-destructive) and requires an extension, but does not explicitly declare it as read-only or safe. The behavior is clear, but lacks explicit confirmation of no side effects.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action and adds a practical usage note. Every sentence contributes 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides adequate context: purpose, prerequisite, and use case. It does not describe the return format or size, but for a read operation, this is acceptable. Slight improvement could be a note on the response structure.

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 input schema has no parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information, earning a baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 the action ('Read the XML') and the resource ('process currently open in the Altair AI Studio GUI'). It differentiates from siblings by focusing on the GUI state rather than repository or file operations.

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 mentions the requirement ('requires the HTTP bridge extension') and provides use case ('useful to see what the human user is working on before suggesting changes'). It implies when to use but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, though the sibling set suggests alternatives.

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