get_last

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core non-blocking behavior and the use case. However, it does not mention what happens if no last known value exists, whether the value persists across restarts, or any error conditions. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose and a concrete example. Every word serves a purpose, and it efficiently communicates the value proposition without fluff.

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 one-parameter getter, the description covers the primary behavior and use case. The presence of an output schema handles return value details. However, missing edge-case behavior (e.g., absent last value) and lack of annotations mean it is not fully complete, but it is adequate as a standalone description.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the single 'topic' parameter, the description must explain it. It only uses the word 'Topics' generically and does not specify the expected format, whether it supports MQTT wildcards, or whether the topic name is a filter or exact match. The schema provides only the name and type, so the description adds no value.

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 returns the last known value of a topic, with the key behavioral attribute of immediacy ('sofort, ohne auf die naechste Nachricht zu warten'). It distinguishes itself from typical MQTT subscribe semantics by highlighting it doesn't wait for the next message, and the noun phrase 'Letzter bekannter Wert eines Topics' is specific and unambiguous.

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: when you need the current cached value immediately without waiting for a new message, e.g., with sleeping battery sensors (Shelly H&T). It contrasts with ready-made MQTT servers but does not explicitly reference sibling tools like get_history or find_silent, so the guidance is contextual rather than comparative.

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