get_event_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 describes the output fields and filter syntax, which adds context, but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or disclose any permissions or side effects. The description is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 plus two filter examples, with no wasted words. The most important information ('Returns system event logs') is front-loaded, and the examples are directly relevant.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the return fields (Id, Type, EventId, Message) and provides filter examples, making it fairly complete for a medium-complexity tool with 3 parameters. It lacks mention of pagination or error handling, but these are partially addressed by the schema (top/skip parameters) and typical OData behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds filter examples (e.g., 'Type eq Error') that go beyond the schema's description of the 'filter' parameter, providing practical usage context. This adds marginal value but does not compensate heavily for the complete schema coverage.

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 'Returns system event logs from 3CX' with specific fields and filter examples. It also lists two exact use cases, making its purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling tools like get_active_calls or get_call_history.

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 explicitly says 'Use this for...' with two example questions, providing clear guidance on when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, though no direct sibling tool overlaps this functionality.

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