enclave_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a non-obvious dual behavior — the tool not only reads from the FlightRecorder but also verifies a SHA-256 hash chain — but it never states that the operation is read-only, nor what happens when verification fails (error, flag, truncated result), nor whether verification covers the returned window or the whole log.

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 zero filler: it states the source, the resource, and the verification step in one pass. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 param) but has no output schema and no annotations, and the verification behavior raises a real question about what is returned when the hash chain is broken — which the description leaves unanswered. It is adequate for calling the tool but not for interpreting its result.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents limit fully. The description's word "recent" is consistent with that but adds no syntax, bounds, or meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Retrieve recent session audit log entries from the FlightRecorder") and adds a second concrete action ("verify its SHA-256 hash chain integrity"), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like enclave_status or enclave_doctor. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The auditing context is only implied by the words "audit log", leaving the agent to infer the situation that calls for this tool over enclave_status or enclave_doctor.

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