Get active task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful behavioral facts: the lookup is project-scoped and may legitimately return nothing ('if any'). It does not describe the shape of a returned task or what happens when no task is running, which matters most for a reconnection flow.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded ahead of the secondary 'useful for' note. Nothing could be trimmed without losing content.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it only says 'the currently-running edit task (if any)' — enough to signal nullability but not the fields, identifiers, or status a client needs to actually reconnect. For a small read tool this is adequate but leaves a real gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single project_id parameter, so the baseline applies. The description adds only the framing that the id selects which project's active task is returned, which is a marginal restatement rather than new semantics such as format or where the id comes from.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('return the currently-running edit task') scoped to a project, which is materially clearer than a bare title restatement. However, it never distinguishes itself from the closely-named siblings check_task_status and check_job_status, leaving the agent to guess which status tool applies.

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 phrase 'Useful for reconnecting MCP clients' implies a usage scenario, which is more than nothing. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the alternatives check_task_status or check_job_status that an agent would plausibly reach for first.

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