vorion_tenant_audit_tail

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

With no annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: events carry hash-chained provenance (eventId, priorProofHash, proofHash) and default to the caller's tenant. It implies a non-mutating read via 'tail,' but does not explicitly state its read-only nature.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, a key output characteristic, and usage scenarios. It is front-loaded and free of fluff.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand what the tool does, when to use it, and a key detail of the returned events. It could explicitly confirm the response shape, but the mentioned fields (eventId, priorProofHash, proofHash) suffice.

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%, with clear descriptions for both 'limit' (with min/max/default) and 'tenantId' (defaults to caller's tenant). The description adds no new parameter-specific info beyond what the schema already provides, 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 clearly states the tool 'Tail the most recent audit events for a tenant' with a specific verb and resource, and notes the default caller's tenant. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vorion_record_signal or vorion_gate_action, which are mutation-focused.

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?

Explicit use cases are given: 'verify governance activity is being recorded correctly' or 'surface the live audit stream in a dashboard / glass window.' This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this tool.

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