audit.recent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'read' conveys a non-destructive read operation, which is useful. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as output format, ordering, or any permissions required, leaving some gaps.

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 with no wasted words. It immediately states the action, resource, and parameter, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, this description is complete enough to understand its purpose and usage. It does not explain the nature of the audit log entries, but that is not essential for invoking the tool correctly. The description is simple and adequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It directly explains the only parameter ('lines') as 'N lines', giving meaning to 'lines' beyond the raw schema. The default/min/max constraints are left to the schema, but the core semantics are covered.

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 uses a specific verb ('read') and resource ('audit log'), and clearly indicates the parameter N. It is distinct from all sibling tools, which are focused on project/ticket management, so there is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 description implies usage ('Read the last N lines from the audit log') but does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives. For a simple read tool this is reasonably clear, but there is no guidance on conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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