current_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly discloses the read-only nature with 'without writing anything' and 'Read-only,' which is the key safety-relevant behavior for this tool. It also signals low cost ('cheaply'), giving agents confidence to call it during write planning.

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?

Two sentences, with the core action and the read-only guarantee front-loaded, and the usage context in the second sentence. No filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description supplies the necessary usage context (before writes, multi-project situations) and the safety profile. The schema documents the parameter, and the output schema handles return shape, so nothing needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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 input schema already documents the single 'project' parameter at 100% coverage, including how to omit it. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond affirming the tool is about where a call would land, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Show which project a call would resolve to,' which precisely identifies the tool's function as a resolution check rather than a listing or mutation. The phrase 'without writing anything' further clarifies scope and separates it from sibling tools like list_projects or log_issue.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'before a write when several projects are in play,' and frames it as a cheap way to answer where a call would land. It doesn't name alternatives or when-not conditions, but the primary trigger is clear.

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