get_active_paste_strategy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, potential side effects, or error handling. It does mention a special case for 'auto' strategy, but overall transparency is low.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the main purpose and providing a key detail about the 'auto' case. Every sentence adds value without waste.

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 no output schema, the description adequately describes the three pieces of returned information (current strategy, configured chain, resolved chain). It explains the 'auto' case behavior. However, it does not specify the data types or structure of the return value, which would be helpful for the agent.

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 has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information because none are needed. Per the guidelines, this situation earns a baseline score of 4.

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 clearly states the tool returns the currently selected paste strategy, the user-configured fallback chain, and the resolved chain. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and distinguishes itself from siblings like list_paste_strategies (which lists all strategies) and set_paste_strategy (which changes the strategy).

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 the tool should be used when you need the current strategy and chains, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like list_paste_strategies or auto_paste. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided, leaving the usage context somewhat implied.

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