get_last_tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses several behavioral traits: each assistant line with at least one tool call counts as one entry, only tool call names and inputs (not results) are returned, entries are ordered oldest first, and each is tagged with the raw line number. This goes beyond the schema and gives important context, though it does not explicitly state read-only behavior.

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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence delivers the core purpose, and the second provides necessary clarifications about counting, ordering, and tagging. Every sentence provides substantive value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description explains the tool's return semantics, filtering behavior, and ordering well, and an output schema exists to further clarify the response shape. It is complete enough for a simple retrieval tool, though it does not mention error conditions or explicitly frame when this tool is preferable over the sibling, leaving a small gap.

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 already contains 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all three parameters, including after_line's pagination use. The description adds some context for count ('counted after filtering') but largely does not enhance beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Return the last `count` tool-calling lines the agent emitted,' which clearly states the verb (Return), resource (tool-calling lines from the agent's log), and scope (last count). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_last_status by focusing specifically on tool calls rather than status.

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 provides thorough operational details (e.g., counting rules, ordering, after_line suppression) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus get_last_status or any alternative. Its usage is implied from the main verb and context, but clear exclusions or alternatives are absent.

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