get_round

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the useful prerequisite that an active project must exist, and clarifies the two distinct records returned (draft summary and committed round). No contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentences with no filler. 'Read-only' is front-loaded, and every clause contributes either to scope, prerequisites, or non-mutating behavior.

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 parameterless tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is complete. It specifies the prerequisite, the exact data returned, and the fact that no editing occurs. An agent has everything it needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter-semantic burden on the description. The schema has no properties, and the description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless 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 states a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('active draft summary and latest committed round'). It clearly distinguishes itself as a read-only retrieval tool from siblings like lock_round, and the 'cannot edit' statement reinforces its non-mutating purpose.

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 clearly states the prerequisite context: 'Requires an active project.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, but the read-only framing and the specific return values make its appropriate context reasonably clear.

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