List All Equipment Logs

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds behavioral context: pagination support (page and per_page), pagination metadata in response, and filterability via query parameters. It also provides the exact API endpoint. 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 concise at 4 sentences, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence. Each sentence adds distinct information: purpose, usage, output format, pagination, required parameter, and API reference. No filler, though the API endpoint detail could be considered extra but useful.

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?

While the description covers pagination and endpoint, it lacks detail on the structure of the returned JSON records. Since no output schema is provided, the description should ideally mention typical fields or refer to the Field Productivity record format. The description is adequate for basic usage but not fully complete.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds value by explaining how to use page and per_page for pagination and mentioning that the response includes pagination metadata. This goes beyond the schema's default/max values.

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 (return a list) and resource (equipment Logs), and specifies the scope (projects the current user has access to). It also clarifies the use case for enumerating Field Productivity records. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_equipment_logs' or 'list_project_equipment_logs', which are similar.

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 usage guidance: 'Use this to enumerate Field Productivity records when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' It does not specify when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, such as 'list_equipment_logs' for project-specific logs. Thus, it offers implied usage without exclusions or alternatives.

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