geck_active_plugin

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

The word 'Read' makes it clear the tool is non-mutating, which is meaningful because no annotations are provided. The phrase 'from the GECK main window title' also discloses that it inspects UI state rather than reading a file directly. This is adequate for a simple read-only tool.

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 focused sentence states the action, target, and data source with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

The description is complete enough for the core read behavior, and the output schema exists to cover return values. However, the backend parameter is undocumented, and there is no context about prerequisites or when this tool is preferable over similar siblings, leaving a moderate completeness gap.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'backend' parameter at all. The meaning of 'backend', valid values, or why 'win32' is the default are left entirely unexplained, so the description provides no compensatory value.

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 identifies the action ('Read'), the object ('active plugin name'), and the source ('GECK main window title'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like geck_list_plugins or geck_save_active_plugin.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as geck_plugin_status, geck_list_plugins, or geck_save_active_plugin. With many sibling tools, the lack of any routing or exclusion is a noticeable gap.

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