kaiten_list_audit_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It correctly signals a non-destructive list operation, states company-wide scope, and lists supported filters. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, result size limits, or any access requirements.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb, resource, and scope, followed by the key filtering capability. There is no filler and every word contributes 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 simple, optional-parameter read operation with a fully documented schema, the description is adequate. It omits return format and pagination details, but those are less critical for a list tool with rich parameter descriptions and no output schema requiring explanation.

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%, and each parameter already has a descriptive doc including defaults and valid values. The description's phrase 'category, action, and date range' mirrors the existing schema fields but adds no new meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('Kaiten audit logs') and scope ('for the company'), and mentions the main filter dimensions. It is clear on its own, but it does not explicitly contrast with similar activity/log tools like kaiten_get_company_activity or kaiten_get_space_activity, leaving differentiation to name inference.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and names no alternative tools. With several activity-related siblings, an agent has no explicit basis for choosing this over those alternatives.

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