get_last_run

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 describes what the tool returns but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify what happens if no recent run exists (e.g., error or empty response), whether it requires specific permissions or authentication, or any rate limits. The description covers the basic operation but misses key context needed for reliable use.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key return values. It is front-loaded with the main action ('Get results and metadata'), followed by specifics, with zero wasted words. Every part of the sentence adds value, making it appropriately concise.

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 complexity (retrieving run data), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., structure of results/metadata), error conditions, or dependencies. For a tool that likely returns structured data about pipeline runs, more context is needed to use it effectively without trial and error.

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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'config' documented as 'Path to config.toml file to determine output directory'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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: 'Get results and metadata from the most recent devpipe run' with specific details about what it returns ('task results, duration, and success status'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'view_run_logs' by focusing on results/metadata rather than logs, and from 'list_tasks' by targeting the most recent run rather than listing tasks. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'check_devpipe' might overlap).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate versus 'view_run_logs' (for logs), 'list_tasks' (for task listings), or 'check_devpipe' (which might serve a similar purpose). There's also no mention of prerequisites like needing a recent run to exist. Usage is implied from the purpose but not explicitly stated.

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