get_audit_tail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Return' signals a read-only operation and 'append-only' adds useful context about event immutability, but there is no disclosure of ordering guarantees, pagination, or potential operational caveats.

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 sentence with no redundant words. The core behavior is front-loaded and the description earns its place without padding.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no nested schema, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly indicates what is returned ('audit events') and the count semantics, though the lack of an output schema means the exact event structure is left unspecified.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the parameter 'n' is already documented as 'Number of events (default 20)'. The description's 'last N' ties the parameter to ordering, but adds little beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 states a specific verb ('Return'), a clear resource ('last N append-only audit events'), and precise scoping. It is easily distinguished from the sibling database and health tools, which deal with schemas, tables, queries, and system status.

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 implies use when recent audit events are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusion conditions. No sibling tool obviously overlaps, so the lack of explicit guidance is a minor gap.

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