Read the latest evidence-chain entries

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: entries are returned newest last, entry content is deliberately withheld, and there is a hard reach of the latest 200 entries with no offset to go further back. That is a real scope limitation an agent could otherwise discover only by failing.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and return shape before the routing guidance. Slightly dense with the parenthetical cross-reference to retrieve_guidance's recorded_at_seq, but every clause carries information and nothing is padding.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, and annotations carry the safety profile; the description still adds the return ordering, content exclusion, and reach limit. For a single-parameter read tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by explaining the operational intent of limit ('Raise limit to look further back') and connecting it to the 200-entry ceiling, which tells the agent what raising the value can and cannot achieve.

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 ('Read the latest entries on the workspace's evidence chain') and immediately specifies the shape of what comes back (sequence number, method, sender, without content). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling audit_verify, which handles integrity instead.

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?

Explicitly gives the use case ('confirm what was recorded') and names the alternative with the condition that selects it ('To check the chain's integrity, use audit_verify'). It further ties itself to retrieve_guidance by explaining that recorded_at_seq appears here as an entry's seq, which tells the agent when to reach for this tool.

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