get_latest_request

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, but it is a single clause stating only the operation. It does not disclose what happens when no requests exist, whether authentication must be established first, what ordering defines 'most recent', or whether the result is a single object. The auth parameters in the schema hint at prerequisites, but the description itself reveals nothing.

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?

Six words, one sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. There is zero redundant text or repetition of the tool name. It earns a 4 rather than 5 because the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than deliberate, complete economy.

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 tool sitting among 37 siblings — including get_request, list_requests, and search_requests — and with no output schema or annotations, this description is insufficient. An agent cannot determine the return shape, the ordering semantics, or edge-case behavior, making confident invocation uncertain. A tool this simple still needs at least a sentence about what 'latest' means and what to expect back.

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%: token, baseUrl, password, and username all have individual descriptions in the schema. Per the baseline rule for high coverage, a 3 is appropriate even though the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. The description's job here is minimal, and the schema carries the parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Get the most recent Clockwork request' uses a specific verb (get) and resource (most recent Clockwork request). The qualifier 'most recent' does distinguish it from get_request (specific ID) and list_requests/search_requests (collections), though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives. Slight deduction because the criterion for 'most recent' is left ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus get_request, list_requests, or search_requests. There is no mention that this is the choice when you want the latest request without knowing its ID, and no exclusions or alternative conditions. Usage context is only inferable from the name, not stated.

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