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, and it discloses only the data source (MCP_AUDIT_LOG). It does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether auth/permissions are needed, ordering guarantees, or the shape of returned entries.

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 short sentence with the resource and the count front-loaded; every word earns its place and there is no filler.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage this is minimally adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should still say more about ordering, entry format, or any limits on n.

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%, so the single parameter 'n' is already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces that n counts the most recent records but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific resource (the audit log, MCP_AUDIT_LOG) and the operation (retrieve the last n entries), which is a concrete verb+resource. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like api_search or api_describe, but the resource scope makes it reasonably distinguishable.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers you call this when you want the most recent audit entries. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mention of an alternative tool for broader audit queries.

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