get_active_user_directives

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds that it queries by status, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination, ordering, or response format. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. Every word serves a purpose, making it concise and efficient.

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 description hints at the output (active directives and count) but does not specify the structure of the returned data. Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, this is mostly adequate, though mentioning the return format would improve completeness.

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 (100% schema coverage), so the description need not add parameter details. It implicitly defines the filter (status='active'), which is sufficiently clear. Baseline of 4 is appropriate 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 ('Get'), the resource ('user directives'), and the filter ('status='active''). It distinguishes from siblings like get_all_directives by specifying the active status filter, making the tool's purpose precise and unambiguous.

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 provides a clear use case ('Convenience query for checking active directive count') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It implies a specific context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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