get_last_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation returns data and adds context about handshake details and that no account is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention that this is a read-only operation, what happens if no run exists (e.g., returns null or errors), or any other behavioral nuances. It adds some value but lacks full transparency.

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 primary purpose, and includes only essential additional context (handshake detail and no-account requirement). There is no wasted wording; every clause 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 is simple (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the main operation and a key prerequisite. It would be more complete with a note on error handling (e.g., what happens if no run is found) or a mention that it's read-only. However, for its complexity, it is nearly complete and clear enough for an 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter `targetId`, which already includes an explanation. The tool description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema—it repeats that it's for a server, but does not elaborate on the format, required patterns, or how it is used in the operation. The description is adequate but not enriching.

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: 'Return the last Observatory run for a server'. It specifies the resource (Observatory run), the scope (last run for a server), and adds a distinctive detail (including handshake allow/deny). This differentiates it from siblings like get_history (which likely returns all runs) and check_server (which likely checks status).

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'No hosted account required', which is a prerequisite/condition, but does not say 'use this to get the most recent run' or contrast it with siblings like get_history or scan. The usage context is only implicit.

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