get_working_directory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses persistence semantics, default value, and the exact return structure (keys: status, data containing cwd, exists, is_dir). This goes beyond a minimal 'get cwd' statement and provides useful behavioral context without contradicting any 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?

The description is appropriately sized: four short sentences covering purpose, persistence, default, and return format, plus a minimal example. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant fluff. It is well-structured with clear sections.

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 zero parameters, a rich output schema, and no annotations, the description fully covers the behavioral contract. It explains persistence, startup default, and the return dictionary keys. For a simple getter, this is complete and leaves no critical gaps.

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, so the schema provides no parameter semantics to enhance. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because the description adds no parameter-level details, but none are needed. The return format is described, which indirectly helps the agent understand what the tool produces.

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 session working directory'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'set_working_directory' by focusing on retrieval rather than modification, and the mention of 'session' differentiates it from other directory-related tools.

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 explains that the working directory persists across tool calls and defaults to the user's home directory, giving clear context of when this tool is relevant. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but for a simple read-only getter with a sibling that sets the directory, the usage context is clear.

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