get_current_work

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

The description discloses the return content (current focus, project path, progress entries) and the intended use. As a getter, it implies read-only behavior; no hidden side effects are mentioned. It does not address error cases or behavior when no log exists, but the description gives sufficient transparency for a simple retrieval tool.

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 clear sentences: the first states the purpose and contents, the second gives usage guidance. No redundant information, appropriately front-loaded.

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 tool with a single optional parameter, the description covers the core purpose, return contents, and a concrete usage scenario. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by listing the returned fields. Minor gaps include not mentioning the date parameter (though the schema covers it) and potential edge cases, but overall it is complete enough.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with the date parameter fully described as 'YYYY-MM-DD' and 'Defaults to today'. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get today's work log' and specifies the content (current focus, project path, and progress entries). It distinguishes itself from siblings like set_focus and log_progress by focusing on retrieval rather than modification, and from read_day by specifically targeting today's log.

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 instructs to 'Call at the start of sessions to resume context', providing a clear use case. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context implies it's the go-to for session startup, while siblings like log_progress are for adding entries. This is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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