game_last_block

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 does well: it discloses the uncached nature, the single GET request behavior, the lack of auto-pagination, the local 100-row/256 KiB array limit with truncation reporting, and refusal of oversized records. This is substantial behavioral context beyond what the empty schema provides.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds important behavioral caveats. Every sentence earns its place, though the phrasing around 'required inputs' and 'declared filters' is slightly abstract and could be clearer for an agent. It is not overly long and avoids 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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential operational details: what it reads, how it behaves (single GET, no pagination), and its limits (100 rows, 256 KiB, truncation reporting, refusal of oversized records). It does not describe the exact response format, but with no output schema and a simple 'latest block number' purpose, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description adds context about 'required inputs reflect tool policy as well as measured upstream requirements' and that other declared filters are forwarded as supplied, which is meaningful for a no-parameter tool because it clarifies that any filters are not guaranteed to be effective. Since there are no params, the baseline is 4, and the description adds extra clarity about the policy-driven input behavior.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('latest block number reported by the game API'), which clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling tools. It also adds a key differentiator: it is not cached by the settings cache, which helps an agent understand its unique role among the game data endpoints.

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 explains that it makes one logical GET request and does not auto-fetch continuation pages, giving clear context for when to use it (simple, single-page read). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the scope is clear enough that an agent can infer it is for a quick, uncached block-number check rather than a paginated or cached query.

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