get_current_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it retrieves the current task (implying a read operation), explains how the current status is determined (manually via 'switch_focus' or automatically), and specifies the response in 'zen state' (returns an appropriate message). This covers the core functionality and edge cases without contradictions.

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 concise and well-structured, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, how the current task is determined, and the behavior in 'zen state'. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand.

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 complexity (simple retrieval with no parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and edge cases ('zen state'), but lacks details on the return format (e.g., structure of the task object or message) and does not fully integrate with sibling tools, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description does not need to add parameter semantics, as there are no parameters to document. It appropriately focuses on the tool's behavior and context, earning a high baseline score for this dimension.

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 tool's purpose: to retrieve the task with CURRENT status, which is defined as the active focus. It specifies that this status can be set manually via 'switch_focus' or automatically determined, and describes behavior in 'zen state'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_completed_tasks' or 'get_stack_overview', which would require a more direct comparison.

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 implies usage by mentioning that the current task may be set via 'switch_focus' or automatically determined, and references 'zen state' scenarios. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_big_picture' or 'peek_context', and does not specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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