audit.tail

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond those: results are 'bounded' and 'payload-free', which tells the agent it won't get an unbounded stream or heavy payloads. It does not describe ordering, but that is minor for a read-only tail operation.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word earns its place, and the most important qualifiers ('bounded', 'payload-free') come immediately after the verb.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, full safety annotations, and no output schema, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient. The only meaningful gap is the lack of guidance on when to use audit.tail versus audit.verify or other siblings.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explicitly explain the 'limit' parameter. However, 'bounded' hints at the parameter's roleaine, and the schema's minimum/maximum constraints make the parameter self-explanatory for a simple optional limit. More explicit mapping from 'bounded' to 'limit' would have been better.

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 names a specific verb ('read'), resource ('decision receipts'), and scope ('from this process'), and the qualifiers 'bounded' and 'payload-free' make the operation more concrete. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast with audit.verify, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance about when to choose audit.tail over audit.verify or any other sibling. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative references, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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