fusion_get_active_component

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral meaning by explaining that the returned value represents the target for subsequent build operations, which goes beyond the structured hints. No contradictions with annotations.

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 with no fluff. The verb is front-loadedhol and every word earns its place, delivering the essential meaning in fourteen words.

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 zero-parameter getter with strong annotations, the description covers the core semantic and operational relevance. The only minor gap is the lack of an explicit return type (e.g., a component name string vs. an object), but this does not hinder correct invocation.

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?

With zero parameters expeced, the schema coverage is vacuously 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs. The baseline of 4 applies, and no parameter-related compensation is needed.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('current build target'), making the tool's function immediately obvious. It clearly distinguishes from the nearby sibling fusion_set_active_component by focusing on retrieval, not modification.

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 text 'subsequent build operations target it' conveys the practical context: call this to know where future build-related operations will apply. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but for a getter, the usage is intuitive and well implied.

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