Get active build status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description correctly avoids repeating those. It adds a valuable behavioral detail that local paths are reduced to a filename, which is not apparent from the name or annotations. This gives the agent useful information about how the source field will be presented, though it does not describe the full return structure.

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 zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and the list of returned fields; the second adds a single important caveat about local paths. Every word earns its place, and the structure is immediately scannable.

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 no-parameter, read-only getter with open-world annotation, the description is nearly complete. It lists all the information the tool exposes and highlights a formatting detail. It does not mention what happens when no active build exists, but that can be inferred from the getter semantics and is not critical given the simple scope. No output schema exists, so the return format is not fully defined, but the summary description suffices.

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, the schema trivially covers all (100%), and the baseline for no parameters is 4. The description appropriately says nothing about parameters since there are none to clarify. It focuses on what the tool returns, which is the meaningful semantics here.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and names the exact resource ('active build') plus a detailed list of what it reveals: source, pinned/automatic selection, character/league identity, refresh age, and a compact build summary. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling getters like get_current_character or get_character_state, which target different resources, and from mutators like set_active_character.

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 implies it is a read-only status query (with readOnlyHint annotation), and the name itself suggests it is the go-to tool for inspecting the active build. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over, say, get_character_state or get_session_summary, nor does it mention any alternatives or exclusions. The usage context is inferable but not spelled out.

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