list_operation_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions ordering (most recent first) and the types of operations, but does not discuss potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or whether the listing is read-only. Additional context beyond what is present would improve transparency.

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 (two sentences plus args) and front-loaded with the main purpose. It efficiently communicates key aspects without extra words, though some details like ordering are embedded rather than highlighted.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema present), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the operation types and ordering, but lacks details like time range filtering or explanation of the output schema contents. The presence of an output schema reduces the burden, but minor gaps remain.

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 0% coverage (no property descriptions), so the description carries the burden. It effectively explains the sole parameter 'limit' as 'Maximum number of entries to return,' adding meaning beyond the schema's type and default. This justifies a score above baseline 3.

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 recent operations from the audit log, specifying the verb (list), resource (audit log), ordering (most recent first), and the types of operations included. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which focus on courses, chapters, lessons, etc., as this is the only audit log tool.

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 explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. While it implies usage for viewing audit logs, it lacks guidance on context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria. Since there are no competing audit log tools, the purpose is clear but the guidance is minimal.

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