hop_current

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: 'Get'/'Returns' implies a read-only operation, and it discloses the scope (current working directory) and the returned fields (branch, path, dirty status, parsed ticket/slug). It omits error behavior when not inside a git repo and does not explicitly affirm non-mutating 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the return contents and rationale. The returned-fields sentence is slightly redundant with the opening sentence but still earns its place by enumerating outputs.

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, single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough: purpose, scope, and enumerated return fields. Missing only edge-case behavior (e.g., outside a repo, detached HEAD) which is minor here.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single optional repoPath parameter is fully documented in the schema; per the rubric this sets a baseline of 3. The description adds only the implicit 'current working directory' default, not new syntax or format detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the current hop (git worktree) context') and clarifies scope as the current working directory. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling 'git_worktree_current', leaving ambiguity about which of the two to pick.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Use this to understand where am I? and to enable resumability after context switches or retries.' That tells the agent when the tool is valuable, but it names no alternatives or exclusions (e.g., vs. hop_list or git_worktree_current).

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