Get ContentSite Logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'last 15 activity logs', which adds some behavioral context (limit and recency), but fails to disclose critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, error conditions, or rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('Get the last 15 activity logs for a content site'). There is no wasted language, and it directly communicates the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., log format, fields), error handling, and operational constraints. For a tool that fetches data, this omission makes it difficult for an agent to use effectively without additional context.

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%, so the schema already documents the 'contentSiteId' parameter fully. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or constraints), but with high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 ('Get') and resource ('activity logs for a content site'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_staging_site_logs' or 'get_content_site_hits', which would require more specific language about what makes this tool unique.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'get_content_site_hits', 'get_staging_site_logs'), there is no indication of when this specific log-fetching tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it from other data retrieval tools.

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