get_task_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 states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but fails to describe key behaviors such as what data is returned, error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it's idempotent. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective 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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Get the last run of a task.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While it may be overly brief for completeness, it earns full marks for conciseness and structure by avoiding redundancy and staying focused.

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 (a read operation with filtering), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances, making it inadequate for the agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results 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, documenting both parameters ('task_id' and 'status') clearly with an enum for 'status'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema, such as examples or usage notes, so it meets the baseline for adequate but not enhanced parameter understanding.

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 'Get the last run of a task' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('last run of a task'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'last run' entails (e.g., metadata, status, timing) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_last_run' or 'get_run', which could cause confusion.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain when to choose 'get_task_last_run' over 'get_last_run', 'get_run', or 'list_task_runs', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for usage, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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