memory_get_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 explaining behavior. It does state that the tool retrieves a checkpoint and helps understand where work left off, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose behavior when no last memory exists, potential errors, or whether any state is initialized, which leaves some ambiguity for an agent.

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 compact and front-loaded with the most important directive: when to call the tool. The parameter list is placed afterward without redundant explanation or filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the key context: when to call it, what it retrieves, and the required parameters. It falls slightly short on edge-case behavior, such as missing checkpoint handling or namespace semantics, but overall it is reasonably complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so parameter meaning depends entirely on the description. It usefully explains project_root as REQUIRED and an absolute path, and namespace as a logical namespace with a default. The namespace definition is thin, but for a two-parameter tool this is adequate compensation for the bare schema.

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 last recorded session checkpoint and is meant for session initialization. It identifies a specific resource ('system/last_memory'), so the purpose is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like memory_retrieve or memory_search, but the 'last checkpoint' scope sets it apart.

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 explicitly says to call this tool FIRST when starting work or opening a project session, which is strong when-to-use guidance. It does not mention when not to use it or describe alternative sibling tools, so the guidance is clear but not fully comparative.

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