Retrieve active operational principles, scenario, and reference knowledge to determine expected behavior and goals for the current network task.
Return the operating principles, the active scenario, and the active reference knowledge for the current task: how to behave, what to accomplish, and what reusable knowledge is available. Reloaded from disk on every call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it adds a meaningful behavioral detail: 'Reloaded from disk on every call,' indicating fresh data each invocation. The use of 'Return' also implies a read-only operation, though side effects, authorization, and error behavior are not explicitly disclosed.
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 two sentences with no fluff: it front-loads the returned content and adds the reload behavior in a single closing clause. Every word earns its place.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is mostly complete: it names all three content areas and explains their purpose. It does not specify the exact structure of the returned data, but for this simple introspection tool that is a minor gap rather than a blocker.
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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description focuses on what the call returns rather than parameters, which is appropriate for a parameterless retrieval tool.
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 ('Return') and names three concrete resources: operating principles, active scenario, and active reference knowledge. This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinguishes it from terminal-focused siblings and get_active_topology.
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 'for the current task' conveys when to use this tool: when the agent needs behavioral guidance, task context, or reusable knowledge. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools have clearly different functions, so usage context is reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.