get_audit_log_head

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It does disclose that the tool is read-only (returns head state and chain), tamper-evident, and uses hybrid signatures. It also states the server flag requirement. However, it does not discuss potential failure modes, performance implications, or response size, which would be helpful.

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 concise, with two sentences that are front-loaded with the tool's output and followed by its usage context and requirement. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy or wasted words.

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 tool's complexity (audit log head with epoch chain and signatures) and the absence of an output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview but lacks details on the response structure or format. It hits the key points but could be more complete for compliance auditors who need to understand the full output.

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?

The input schema has no parameters (0 parameters, 100% schema coverage), so the description is not required to add parameter information. According to the guidelines, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description meets this by not needing to elaborate.

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 states that the tool returns the current head state of the tamper-evident audit log, including specific fields (last log entry seq, closed epoch seq, unclosed-entry count) and the full closed-epoch chain with hybrid signature envelopes. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_compaction_audit and get_health_report.

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 explicitly says 'Compliance auditors call this periodically to verify no operator misbehavior has occurred since the last check,' which provides a clear use case. It also mentions a prerequisite: 'Requires WORLD_MODEL_AUDIT_LOG=on at server startup.' However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives.

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