Get Current Location

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the description adds context beyond them: the returned value is mutable state changed by select_project_item, other tools implicitly depend on it, and the Xojo IDE must be running with a project open. Missing only failure-mode detail (e.g. what is returned when nothing is selected).

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the return contract, then dependency semantics, then prerequisites. Every clause carries distinct information; no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so exactly, including a concrete example. It also covers the runtime prerequisite and the cross-tool dependency, which is everything an agent needs to call and interpret this 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; nothing about inputs needs explaining. The description instead spends its budget on the return-value shape, which is more useful than parameter prose would be here.

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 and immediately pins down the exact return format ('<path> (<type>)' with a concrete example), so an agent knows precisely what it gets. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_project_info (same item plus project path/version) and select_project_item (mutates the selection).

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule: tools with an optional location parameter act on this item when omitted, so check this value first. It also names the two adjacent alternatives and what each does differently, leaving nothing to inference.

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