get_last_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that errors are included, which is a useful behavioral note, but it does not cover permissions, rate limits, whether the log is cleared after reading, or the format of the return. With an output schema present, some return details may be covered there, but the description is minimal for a tool with no annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that is concise and free of filler. It could be slightly clearer by specifying what 'payload' means, but it is efficient.

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 that the tool has an output schema (so return values need not be explained) and no parameters, the description is mostly complete. However, with no annotations and sparse behavioral detail, an agent lacks context on when to call this tool versus others, and whether the log is persistent. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. Per the rubric, zero params gives a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it correctly omits them.

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 says it retrieves the last execute_code payload from the Houdini session, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not clearly distinguish itself from siblings like get_network_overview or list_panes, and the phrasing 'Last execute_code payload' is slightly ambiguous without context on whether it returns stdout, return values, or errors. It's adequate but not sharp.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent might confuse it with find_error_nodes, get_network_overview, or execute_hscript. The description implies it's for debugging execute_code, but no when/when-not rules are provided.

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