List Log Files

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive behavior, so the description is not required to carry the safety profile. It nonetheless adds nothing beyond a raw query string — no note on return volume, paging behavior, or the log-type enum's meaning, which would have been genuinely useful for a log-listing tool.

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?

It is a single short line with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise: the one sentence present conveys an endpoint path instead of usable purpose or behavior 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?

For a paginated, enum-driven list tool this is thin: no explanation of the log-type taxonomy, ordering, or paging defaults, even though there is no output schema to fall back on. The annotations cover safety but not the operational context an agent needs to call it well.

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 an enum on `log_type`, so the schema carries the parameter semantics and a baseline of 3 applies. The description's `type=&limit=&offset=` string adds no meaning and even uses names (`limit`, `offset`) that do not match the schema's `page_size` and `start_index`.

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 only restates an HTTP route (`GET /v1/logs`) rather than stating in prose what the tool does; the reader must infer 'list log files' from the title. It gives no differentiation from the sibling `fortimail.logs.download` or `fortimail.reports.list`, so it is close to tautological.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus list-based siblings such as `fortimail.logs.download`, `fortimail.reports.list`, or `fortimail.queue.list`. Usage can only be inferred from the endpoint name.

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