Audit Tail

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

The annotations already indicate read-only behavior (readOnlyHint true). The description adds that it includes refusals and is the evidence trail, but does not elaborate on side effects, data scope, or any other behavioral nuances beyond what annotations convey.

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 brief, with two sentences that directly convey the tool's purpose without any redundant or filler content. It is optimally concise.

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 simple read-only nature of the tool and the presence of an output schema (indicated in context), the description is largely complete. It could potentially mention the default count or filtering behavior, but the essential context is covered.

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 includes a single 'count' parameter with a default, but the description does not explain how count affects results. The schema provides type and default, but without semantic meaning the parameter remains underspecified.

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 the tool returns recent audit records and positions it as the engagement's evidence trail. It effectively conveys the core purpose, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling audit tools like cloud_audit or code_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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or context. It simply states what it is, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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