audit_tail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation (returning records) but does not mention permissions, side effects, or performance considerations. The example path gives a hint about the expected location, but more context would be helpful.

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 very concise: three sentences covering the action, use cases, and an example. Information is front-loaded and no unnecessary words are present.

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 (2 params, output schema exists), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, and an example. However, it lacks a note about file existence or permissions, which would be helpful for a file-reading tool.

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, so the description must compensate. It explains 'n' as the number of records and gives an example path format. It also notes the default for n (20). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though it could be more explicit about the path parameter's required format.

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 action: 'Return the last n records from a JSONL audit log.' This is a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like audit_summary which likely summarizes rather than tails.

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 explicit use cases: 'what did the agent just do?' and 'did anything fail?'. It also offers an example command. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like audit_summary.

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