get_cwd

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It clearly states the tool returns the cwd and shows an example. However, it does not disclose whether the returned directory is absolute or relative, or whether symlinks are resolved. For such a simple tool, these are minor omissions.

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 extremely concise at two short sentences plus one line example. Every part is necessary and there is no extraneous information.

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 that the tool has no parameters, no annotations, but an output schema, the description is complete enough. It correctly describes the function, provides a usage example, and does not need to explain return values since the output schema exists.

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%, so the baseline with no param info is 4. The description confirms the zero-parameter requirement via the example, which aligns perfectly with the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the current working directory of the server process'. This is unambiguous and sufficiently distinct from sibling tools like list_dir, get_env_var, or tree, which have different purposes.

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 includes a code example showing the function call with no arguments, which implies no special preconditions. However, no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives (especially similar tools like list_dir or get_env_var) is provided. The tool is simple enough that usage is obvious, but explicit exclusions would improve it.

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