sap_audit_tail

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns only today's records in JSON format, which is a behavioral constraint. However, it does not specify what occurs if no records exist or if n exceeds available entries.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, front-loaded with the action. However, it omits parameter details, which for a one-parameter tool could be more explicit without much added length.

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 simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description covers the core functionality and scope. The output schema handles return details. Some context about error handling or edge cases is missing but not critical for this tool.

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 explain parameters. It mentions 'the last N' but does not explicitly link N to the parameter 'n' or describe its role beyond a count. The schema shows 'n' with default 50, but the description adds minimal semantic value.

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 JSON audit records from today's audit log.' It specifies the verb (Return), resource (JSON audit records), and scope (today's log), making the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like sap_get_user_audit.

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 this tool is for recent, today-specific audit log entries but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives like sap_get_user_audit or sap_get_syslog. There is no guidance on exclusions or conditions.

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