workspace_browser_current

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (get current object) but does not discuss side effects, return format, or whether this is a read-only operation. However, for a getter with no parameters, the description is adequate—nothing is destroyed and no auth is implied. It adds a bit of context about the scope (project browser), but lacks details like what happens if nothing is selected.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded and free of fluff. It says exactly what the tool does with no wasted words.

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 the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and is a simple getter, the description is fairly complete. It could mention handling of the null case (nothing selected) or the return type, but the context complexity is low. Sibling tools exist, but the description clarifies its scope to the project browser.

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 the description doesn't need to explain parameters. Since schema description coverage is 100% (void schema) and parameters are absent, the baseline for zero params is 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.

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 purpose: 'Get the object currently selected in the project browser.' It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('object currently selected in the project browser'). It is distinguishable from siblings like workspace_info or workspace_navigate, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself.

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 usage context (querying the current selection), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like workspace_editor_selection or utility_lookup. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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