list_selected_portals

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. The verb 'List' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and the description specifies exactly what is returned (selected pairs and active one). It does not explicitly state there are no side effects, but the read-only nature is evident.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('List') and the precise scope ('every portal/project pair currently selected, and which one is active'). No wasted words; everything is essential.

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 simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what information will be returned, which is sufficient for deciding whether to invoke it.

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, and schema coverage is 100% trivially. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific information because none exist. It is accurate and complete for this aspect.

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 the tool lists currently selected portal/project pairs and indicates which is active. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_portals and list_projects, which likely list all available options, by explicitly adding the 'currently selected' qualifier.

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 usage for querying the current selection state but does not explicitly contrast it with siblings. It does not say 'use this instead of list_portals when you need the active selection,' leaving the decision to inference. A clear alternative would improve routing.

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