current_org

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Report' implies a read-only operation and 'if any' usefully signals the result may be empty, but it says nothing about permissions or session prerequisites. The presence of an output schema covers the return shape.

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?

A single short sentence with the key qualifier ('currently active', 'if any') front-loaded. No wasted wording and nothing buried.

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?

For a zero-parameter read with an output schema documenting the response, the description is nearly sufficient. The one remaining gap is how it relates to sibling org tools, which would help an agent route correctly.

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 there is nothing parameter-level for the description to explain. Baseline is 4 for a parameterless tool, and nothing here misleads about inputs.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Report the currently active org'. That clearly separates it from mutating siblings like use_org or login, though it does not explicitly name org_status or orgs_list as the alternatives an agent might confuse it with.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the way to check which org is currently active. There is no statement of when to prefer it over org_status, orgs_list, or use_org, and no note about switching orgs first.

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