inspect_last_response

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the read-only nature (returns response, no mutations), explains the dependency on compressed responses, and warns about multiple recent responses if 'call_id' is omitted. No contradictions detected.

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 two sentences in Spanish, front-loaded with the main purpose. It is concise but could be more compact without losing clarity. Structure is effective.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return content (full HTTP response) and parameter usage. It lacks explicit mention of response format (headers, body) but the context of 'HTTP response' is generally understood. Completes the picture for a targeted retrieval tool.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'call_id', with a thorough description. The tool description adds only context (the relationship to compressed responses) beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema already explains the parameter well.

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 retrieves the full HTTP response from a previous 'request' call when the compressed version is insufficient. It specifies the action (recupera/inspect), the resource (last response), and distinguishes it from related tools like 'request' which likely returns compressed responses.

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 explicit guidance on when to use (when compressed version is insufficient) and how to supply the 'call_id' parameter, including behavior when omitted (returns most recent). It implicitly suggests using it as a fallback to 'request'. Could mention alternatives or when not to use, but overall clear.

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