game_last_block

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and covers key behaviors: not cached by settings cache, single GET, no auto-pagination, and array limits with truncation. This is strong disclosure for a simple tool, though it doesn't discuss error handling or response format beyond truncation.

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 tight and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by important caveats. Each sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy, and it remains concise despite covering multiple behavioral details.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and low complexity, the description covers all necessary operational aspects: caching, request nature, pagination behavior, and response limits. An agent can call this tool correctly without additional info.

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?

Since there are no parameters, the schema is trivial. The description adds value by explaining that required inputs (none) reflect tool policy and upstream requirements, and that any other declared filters are forwarded as supplied. This compensates for the empty schema.

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 'Read the latest block number reported by the game API' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like game_settings or list_endpoints, though the uniqueness of 'latest block number' makes it distinct enough.

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 simple usage: no inputs, one GET request, and no pagination. But it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The context of it being a lightweight status read is clear, but exclusions are absent.

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