Last response

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the response is session-scoped and cached, and the tool silently performs a comparison against a saved example, reporting status, content type and differing JSON paths. That silent side-effect of comparison output is the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The primary behavior (show cached response without resending) comes first, and the conditional comparison behavior is correctly subordinated behind 'When the request has saved examples'.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return values, and it wisely stays out of that. It covers the key non-obvious facts an agent needs: session-scoped availability, no re-send, and implicit example comparison. A note on the failure mode when no prior response exists would close the remaining gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, including select, example, shape_only and max_body_bytes, so the schema already carries the parameter burden and a baseline 3 applies. The description ties 'saved examples' to the example parameter and hints at what comparison yields, but adds no format, defaulting, or interaction detail beyond the schema text.

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 and resource — 'show the last response a saved request got in this session' — and immediately scopes the source ('from send_request or run_folder'), which distinguishes it from every sibling that would produce a fresh response. An agent can tell without opening any schema that this is a cached-read tool, not a request-firing tool.

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?

'Without sending it again' gives a clear condition for choosing this over send_request and run_folder, which are the obvious alternatives. It does not, however, address when to prefer this over get_request or list_requests, nor what happens when no prior response exists in the session.

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