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 mentions that entries cover Plaid calls and keychain operations, but lacks critical info like authorization requirements, rate limits, ordering (most recent first?), or whether entries are system-wide or user-specific. For a read tool, more behavioral context is needed.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core action, and the second provides context about what is recorded. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core functionality and scope. Minor omissions like ordering direction or maximum N are acceptable given the tool's simplicity. The output schema handles return value details.

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 one parameter 'n' with default 50 and 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by stating 'last N', clarifying that the parameter controls the count and implies recency. This adequately compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Return the last N audit-log entries', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from all sibling tools, which are focused on syncing, linking, or health checks, not auditing.

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 when the audit log is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites. Given the sibling tools are unrelated, the usage context is clear but not explicitly stated.

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