List Equipment Logs

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds context about default date behavior and pagination metadata, which is useful but not extensive. 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 roughly 6 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then covering filtering, pagination, and required parameters. It is fairly concise but includes some redundant information like the full endpoint path.

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 the tool has 8 parameters, one required, and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: default date behavior, pagination, required project_id, and links to further documentation. It provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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% (all parameters described). The description adds minor context about using page and per_page for pagination and links to documentation for date filtering, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 states that the tool returns all Equipment Logs for the current date and mentions pagination and filtering, clearly indicating it lists equipment logs for a project. It is specific but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like list_all_equipment_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 explains when to use the tool: 'when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' It provides clear context but does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives.

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