whodb_platform_active_version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral detail — the workspace override is scoped to this call and leaves defaults untouched. It does not disclose what is returned when no active version exists or any access requirements.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the targeting caveat. No filler and nothing that could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the action and scoping adequately. It leaves open what the returned version payload looks like and how a missing active version is surfaced, which an agent would benefit from knowing.

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%, so the schema already documents id, fields, object_type, and the nested workspace object. The description's mention of workspace targeting without changing defaults is already present in the schema's own text, so it adds little beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (read) and resource (active production version of one versioned object), which is enough to distinguish it from listing siblings like whodb_platform_object_versions. However, the description never references those siblings by name, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

It explains the per-call workspace targeting mechanic (host/org/project without changing defaults), which is partial usage context. It gives no when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, e.g. versus whodb_platform_object_versions or whodb_platform_project_active_versions, and no prerequisites or failure conditions.

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