List Insight Logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by stating the return fields ('log ID, title, data type, and units') and its scope ('all available'), which helps the agent understand the output without an output schema. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action ('List all available insight logs'), and every part contributes useful information. No unnecessary detail or repetition.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with good annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what is returned and how to proceed, making it fully usable for an agent without needing 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is fully covered, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, but it does mention the log ID in the context of retrieval, which is slightly helpful for downstream usage.

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's function: 'List all available insight logs' with specific types in parentheses. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_insight_entries by focusing on listing logs rather than retrieving entries, and from other list tools by specifying insight logs.

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 clear usage guidance by explaining the follow-up action: 'Use the log ID with get_insight_entries to retrieve historical data.' This implies when to use this tool (to get an overview of logs) and what to do next. It lacks an explicit exclusion or alternative, but the workflow is well-defined.

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