infomaniak_audit_log_tail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by saying 'Read'. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying the content of the audit log and that it is persistent, which goes beyond the structured annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. It avoids redundancy with schema or annotations.

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 optional parameter, output schema exists), the description is largely complete. It explains the tool's purpose and typical use cases. A minor gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from audit_log_search, but purpose clarity already handles that.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the only parameter 'limit', and the description does not mention or explain it. The parameter is inferable from its name and constraints, but the description fails to compensate for the missing schema description, leaving the agent to guess its exact purpose.

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 verb ('Read') and resource ('persistent MCP audit log'), scoped to 'newest entries'. It explicitly lists what can be inspected (recent tool calls, write confirmations, applied changes, failures), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like infomaniak_audit_log_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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'Use this to inspect recent tool calls, write confirmations, applied changes, and failures.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is well-defined.

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