repeat_last

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 effectively explains key traits: it returns the 'exact same response from session state,' involves 'No Figma API call needed,' and is 'Useful for context recovery.' This covers the read-only, non-destructive nature and performance benefits, though it could add more on error handling or state persistence.

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 well-structured with clear sections ('HOW IT WORKS,' 'WHEN TO USE'), front-loaded key information, and uses bullet points for readability. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to scan for an AI agent.

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 the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and its behavioral traits. A minor gap is the lack of detail on what happens if no previous response exists, but overall it provides sufficient context for effective use.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately avoids discussing parameters, focusing instead on functionality. A baseline of 4 is applied as it compensates well for the lack of parameters by explaining the tool's behavior clearly.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Repeat') and resource ('last response'), distinguishing it from all sibling tools which involve API calls to Figma for data retrieval or analysis. It explicitly notes it operates on 'session state' rather than making new API calls, making its unique function immediately apparent.

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 includes an explicit 'WHEN TO USE' section that provides clear guidance: use when 'Lost context and need to see previous data' or 'Want to reference last response again.' This directly addresses when to choose this tool over alternatives (like re-fetching data via API calls), with no misleading exclusions.

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