get_current_route

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. As a pure read operation ('Returns the name'), the behavior is largely self-describing. However, it doesn't disclose what the return value looks like (format of route name, whether it's null/error when no route is active), which matters since there's no output schema.

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?

Single sentence, zero waste, immediately states the core function. Nothing extraneous.

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?

The tool is simple (0 params, no schema), and the description covers the core function adequately. However, since there's no output schema and no annotations, the description could add marginal value by clarifying the return format or edge cases (e.g., what happens when the stack is empty). It's adequate but not rich for a read operation with no structural support.

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, so there's nothing to document. The schema coverage is 100% (vacuous), and the description correctly needs no parameter explanation. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the verb (returns), the resource (currently active route on the Navigator stack), and the scope (active route). It's unambiguous and distinct from siblings like navigate_to and go_back, which modify the route rather than read it.

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 when to use it (to check the current Navigator route) but doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use it. For a simple getter in a UI automation context, the usage is fairly self-evident, but there's no explicit guidance about alternatives like get_widget_tree or get_accessibility_tree for navigation inspection.

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