current_context

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations, specifically that resolution is based on the working directory and that the output intentionally excludes port numbers, which is a meaningful caveat for agents selecting between context and port-resolution tools.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. The key clarifying statement about not returning port numbers is placed at the end, which is acceptable but slightly less front-loaded than ideal.

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 simple read-only nature, an output schema, and full parameter schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It clearly identifies what is returned and explicitly states the important negative detail about port numbers, though it could add a brief note about when to use this tool among its siblings.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single optional cwd parameter, so the schema already explains the parameter. The description adds only implicit context about the 'working directory' and does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 clearly states that the tool returns the project and slot resolved from the working directory, along with service names, and explicitly notes that port numbers are not included. This differentiates it from sibling tools like resolve_port and resolve_url. It would be stronger with an explicit verb such as 'Gets' or 'Resolves'.

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 the tool is used to retrieve the current project/slot context from the working directory, but it does not explain when to choose this over alternatives like render_env, resolve_port, or status. No exclusions or comparative guidance are provided.

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