audit_tail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns recent entries, that the source log is tamper-evident, and what fields an entry contains. It does not explicitly discuss ordering, permissions, or read-only guarantees, but the audit-tail nature and field list make the behavior reasonably transparent.

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, tightly written sentence that immediately states the resource and the most important properties of the returned entries. Every phrase earns its place and there is no redundant 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?

Given the simple two-optional-parameter contract and a fully documented schema, the description covers everything needed for both selection and correct invocation. It explains what the tool does, what an entry includes, and the recent-history nature of the result.

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?

Both parameters (ref and limit) are already fully described in the input schema, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. The description reinforces the overall audit-log scope but does not go beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the exact resource: recent entries from the tamper-evident audit log, and enumerates the kinds of information the entries contain. It is easily distinguished from the sibling tools because it is about audit history, not secret lookup, provider listing, HTTP calls, or command execution.

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?

The use case is clearly implied: the agent should use this when it needs recent audit log entries about credential use, capability, target host/command, and allow/deny results. It does not explicitly name alternatives or define when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is not ambiguous.

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