Read last Muse reply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the operation is non-mutating ('without sending anything') and scoped to the current thread, but it omits auth requirements, what happens if no thread is active, and the exact return format.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The core action and its non-sending constraint are immediately clear.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema getter, the description covers the essential purpose and non-mutating behavior. It could mention the implicit prerequisite of an active thread or authentication, but otherwise it is sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not introduce any contradictory or missing parameter information.

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?

States a specific verb 'Return' and resource 'most recent assistant message from the current thread', with a clear scope qualifier 'without sending anything' that distinguishes it from send-oriented siblings like muse_chat.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. The phrase 'without sending anything' hints at read-only usage but does not say when to choose this over muse_read_chat or other read tools.

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