Select Latent History Entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions the HTTP method (POST) and the purpose (latent reuse), but doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., whether it changes the current latent state, requires prior listing, or has any destructive implications). The description adds some context but lacks depth on behavioral consequences.

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, front-loaded with the action and purpose, and includes a cross-reference to the listing tool. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose, the endpoint, and how to discover valid names. It could mention what happens after selection (e.g., how it affects subsequent generation), but for a simple selection tool, this is adequate.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter (name) with a description 'Latent history entry name.' The tool description adds the context that the name refers to a latent history entry, but doesn't add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is high.

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 selects a latent history entry by name for 'Vary (Z)'-style latent reuse, with a specific endpoint (POST /sdapi/v1/latents). It distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing sdnext_list_latents for listing entries, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other selection tools.

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: it's for latent reuse in 'Vary (Z)' workflows, and it directs users to list entries via sdnext_list_latents first. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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