audit_tail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: it specifies the exact file location, the fact that only confirm:true writes are logged, and that previews are excluded. This gives the agent useful expectation about data availability.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every piece of information (file path, filtering rule) is relevant and efficiently communicated without redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description could have explained the structure of each audit entry. It does specify the source file and filtering, but not the fields of the returned entries. Overall, this is reasonably complete for a simple tail tool with good annotations, but a short note on output format would have made it complete.

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 only parameter 'limit' is fully described in the input schema with a default, range, and description, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description itself does not add extra parameter semantics, but with full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action (Return), a specific resource (write audit entries), and the scope (last N for this tenant, from a specific file path). It also distinguishes from the sibling audit_search by implying a tail operation rather than a search.

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 the tool is used to retrieve recent confirmed write audit entries, but it does not explicitly mention when to choose this over audit_search or other siblings. The note about 'confirm:true' and previews exclusion provides some context but no direct usage alternatives.

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