pentest_audit_tail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a genuinely useful trait — that every tool call is recorded, making this an authoritative trail — and the verb 'return' implies a read-only operation. However, it omits ordering guarantees beyond 'last', whether n is capped, what an entry contains, and whether results are truncated, which matters for a log-inspection tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. The core action and scope come first, and the parenthetical adds a real clarification rather than filler.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional integer parameter) and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, the missing default/max for n and the absence of any note on ordering or entry format leave small but real gaps for an agent deciding how to call it.

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 single parameter n has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by framing n as the count of most-recent entries, but it never states the default of 50, any maximum, or whether n counts entries or lines, leaving the agent to infer the unit and bounds.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns the last n audit log entries. The parenthetical clarifies that every tool call is recorded, so an agent immediately understands what the log contains. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent tools like pentest_tool_status or pentest_rules, though none of the siblings cover audit logs, so confusion risk is low.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions for choosing this over alternatives, and no stated prerequisites such as scope or engagement loading. The purpose is inferable from the name and description, but the agent is left to decide on its own when tailing the audit log is the right action.

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