audit_tail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the content of the audit trail (who, when, file, result) but does not state whether this is a read-only operation, any permission requirements, or side effects. The verb 'xem' implies viewing but does not explicitly confirm safety or lack of side effects.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded with the purpose. It is concise and efficient, though it is so minimal that it lacks detail. This is still appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool.

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?

The tool has one optional parameter and an output schema, but the description does not explain the parameter or provide usage context. It is adequate for a simple tool, but the missing parameter explanation and lack of behavioral context leave gaps that could confuse an agent. The output schema likely covers the return format, so that is not a major concern.

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% and the description does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. The agent is left to guess that 'limit' controls the number of recent calls returned, which is not obvious from the description alone. The description fails to add any meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb 'xem' (view) and resource 'lệnh gọi gần nhất' (recent calls), and elaborates on the content: who called, when, which file was read, and the result. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like file_read or file_list, which focus on file operations rather than audit logs.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool or how it compares to alternatives. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or references to sibling tools.

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