get_last_run

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

The description implies a read-only, safe operation (retrieve), but does not disclose potential edge cases such as behavior when no run exists, error handling, or required permissions. Without annotations, the description carries the full burden; it is adequate but not thorough.

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 consists of two concise sentences that immediately convey purpose and usage. Every word is purposeful; no fluff or redundancy.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and provides usage context. It could mention the return format or what happens if no result is found, but overall it is complete enough for an AI 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?

The input schema already provides a clear description for the single parameter (targetId). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 uses specific verbs ('retrieve', 'Finds') and identifies the resource ('last check results', 'most recent run artifact'). It clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_history or diff_runs by focusing on the most recent run.

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 states when to use the tool ('review previous results or diff against a new run'), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, slightly reducing the score.

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