uisp_list_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 of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('List') but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, pagination semantics, rate limits, or any side effects. The note about MAC/IP addresses in log messages is a data-content detail, not a behavioral trait. The description is silent on response format, ordering, or limits, which is a significant gap for a tool with pagination parameters.

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 long, front-loads the primary action, and includes a concise list of filters. Every clause contributes to understanding the tool's scope. It avoids redundancy and is efficiently structured.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is somewhat minimal. It does not explain pagination behavior (page/count semantics are only in the schema), ordering, or the shape of the returned data. The note about MAC/IP addresses is useful but does not compensate for missing behavioral context. However, the schema covers parameter details, and the description provides a reasonable overview, making it adequate but not comprehensive.

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 8 parameters have descriptions). The description's mention of filtering by 'site, device, severity level, event tag, or a text query' maps to the parameters but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not elaborate on parameter interactions, defaults, or edge cases, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the semantics.

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 lists the UISP event/audit log and provides examples of log content (logins, device state changes, backups, upgrades). It also enumerates the filtering dimensions (site, device, severity, tag, query), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like uisp_list_outages, but the resource ('event/audit log') is distinct enough that an agent can infer its purpose.

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 does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. It only describes what the tool does and the available filters. With no sibling differentiation or explicit usage context, an agent has no guidance on when to choose this over other log-related tools (e.g., uisp_list_tasks, uisp_list_outages).

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