get_current_address

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves the 'currently selected' address, implying it's a read-only operation dependent on user state, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what happens if no address is selected (error, null return), whether it requires specific permissions, or rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get the address'), making it immediately understandable. 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?

Given the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is minimally complete. However, as a tool with no annotations, it lacks context about error conditions, dependencies on user state, or return format details that the output schema might cover. For a simple read operation, it's adequate but leaves behavioral questions unanswered.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics (none exist), which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the description correctly avoids unnecessary parameter details.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('address currently selected by the user'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on the current user selection rather than functions, structures, or other data types. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential address-related siblings (none exist in the provided list).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires a user to have selected an address first), exclusions, or related tools for other address-related operations. The sibling list shows no direct alternatives, but context signals suggest this is part of a reverse engineering/debugging toolset where address selection is a common operation.

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