editor_get_current_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing that returned content is document-type dependent (parent schematic info for schematic pages, associated board info for PCBs), which is exactly the kind of value annotations cannot provide.

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, zero waste, front-loaded with the core action followed by the type-conditional return detail. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries some of the return-value burden, and it does describe the type-conditional structure of the response. A getter with full annotation coverage and a fully documented single parameter is largely complete, though it could say a bit more about the shape of 'detailed info'.

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 only one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents instance_id including the 8-char hex format and the list_instances reference. The description adds nothing about it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (currently focused document) with a clear scope qualifier. It is distinguishable from siblings like editor_get_open_tabs and editor_open_document by the 'currently focused' qualifier, though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'currently focused document' but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over editor_get_open_tabs or document_get_source, and no stated prerequisites. The agent can infer intent but must guess at alternatives.

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