api_audit_tail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only restates the read itself. It does not disclose ordering (newest-first?), whether entries are paginated, retention limits, or any authorization requirement for reading the audit log.

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 zero filler; the resource and count are stated immediately. It is efficient, though so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the count parameter adequately. It is nonetheless thin for a log-reading tool: ordering, time range, and permission context are left unaddressed.

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%, with the 'n' parameter already documented as 'Сколько последних записей вернуть (по умолчанию 20)'. The description only echoes that same meaning ('Последние N записей'), adding no extra semantics such as a maximum value, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource ('журнал аудита вызовов' – API call audit log) and an operation ('Последние N записей' – return the last N records), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not contrast itself with any sibling, but the audit-tail resource is clearly distinct from siblings like api_search, api_describe, or api_status.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as api_search or api_describe, and no stated exclusions or prerequisites. The word 'Последние' implies recency but the description never explains the trigger condition for calling it.

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