get_active_project

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

The description explicitly states it is 'Read-only, no side effects.' Since annotations are not provided, the description carries the full burden and fully discloses behavior. It also describes return values in two cases, adding transparency.

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, using a short initial sentence then bullet points. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clear and front-loaded.

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 has no parameters, a detailed description of return values, and explicit guidance on related tools, it is complete. The output schema exists, but the description still adds context.

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 by default). The description does not add parameter information because none exist, but it does explain the tool's purpose and outputs, which is sufficient. A score of 4 is appropriate as no parameter info is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('active project for this session'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_project() and list_projects(). It avoids any ambiguity.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('verify which project is bound before making tool calls') and explicitly names alternatives ('Use set_project() to change the binding. Use list_projects() to see all registered projects and their stats.'). This provides clear guidance.

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