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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It signals a read-like operation ('get') and an auth context ('Gateway key'), which gives some transparency. However, it does not disclose what happens when no capsule exists, whether the Gateway key is required/optional, or any error/absence behavior.

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 front-loads the purpose and provides a rationale. Every part earns its place, and it is not padded with redundant schema information.

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 simple two-parameter fetch with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic intent and auth context. But it omits return format, missing-capsule behavior, and explicit parameter roles, so it is only minimally adequate for a confident invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not formally define parameters. However, 'Gateway key' hints at the 'secret' parameter and 'monitored agent' hints at 'monitor_id'. This gives the agent partial semantic anchors, but an explicit mapping would be needed to fully compensate for the empty schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'get the last state capsule' a monitored agent sent, with a clear purpose ('to resume from where it died'). The resource type is specific enough that it is naturally distinguished from sibling tools like delete_monitor, fleet_status, heartbeat, and register_monitor, even though no sibling is named 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?

The description implies when to use it — after an agent dies and you want to resume — but it does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives. A short 'use heartbeat/fleet_status for liveness instead' would have made the routing unambiguous.

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