get_audit_log_head

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tamper-evident nature, the return content, and a runtime prerequisite (WORLD_MODEL_AUDIT_LOG=on). It adds meaningful operational context beyond a simple 'get' but stops short of stating read-only semantics explicitly.

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 only two sentences but packs in the purpose, return value details, use case, and a critical prerequisite. Every clause earns its place with no fluff.

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 no-parameter, read-only operation with no annotations or output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, when to use it, and what server configuration is required. An agent has enough to deploy it correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is empty. The description explains what the tool returns, which is the only meaningful semantic content in this case. Baseline 4 applies since there are no parameters to describe.

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 'Return' and names the resource 'audit log head state' plus the 'closed-epoch chain', clearly defining what the tool does. This differentiates it from other audit-related siblings like get_compaction_audit.

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?

It explicitly states a use case: 'Compliance auditors call this periodically to verify no operator misbehavior has occurred since the last check.' This gives clear context on when to use it, but it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it misses the top score.

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