pro_audit_tail

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

Annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that records are redacted ('omit full CAD arguments') — but says nothing about ordering (newest first?), whether results are truncated or paginated, or what happens when more entries exist than the limit.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the redaction caveat is attached efficiently via a semicolon. It is arguably over-terse, but no sentence is wasted.

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 trivial no-required-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers what it returns and one important data-quality caveat. The remaining gap is entry shape and ordering, which is minor at this complexity level.

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 for the single 'limit' parameter. It implies the parameter bounds a recency window by saying 'recent', but it does not state ordering or whether the limit counts entries from the newest backwards, leaving the parameter's effect only half explained beyond the schema's type/default/min/max.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Return recent plan audit entries'), so an agent knows it retrieves a log, not CAD geometry. It does not define what a 'plan audit' entry is or relate it to the similarly prefixed pro_run_plan / pro_result tools, which leaves the domain term somewhat opaque.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool, no prerequisite, and no named alternative among the many sibling tools. The word 'recent' hints at a tail-style use case but no condition or exclusion is given.

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