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 clearly states the tool 'gets' and 'returns' the path, implying a read-only operation with no side effects. But it does not mention potential error conditions, permission requirements, or any edge cases, which could matter in some contexts.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core information. However, it includes a redundant bilingual repetition ('/ 获取当前工作目录路径...') that adds no new value for an AI agent, reducing efficiency slightly.

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?

The tool is very simple with no parameters and an output schema. The description explicitly states the return value (absolute path), which is sufficient for the agent to understand the tool's behavior. No important information 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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain any. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing to add and the schema already captures the parameterless nature.

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 ('Get') and a clear resource ('current working directory path'), and further clarifies it returns the absolute path. This distinguishes it from related sibling tools like change_directory or list_directory, which have different purposes.

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 the tool's purpose: it is the tool to call when you need the current working directory path. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or references to alternatives, leaving some ambiguity in tool selection.

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