list-auditlogs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that this is a read operation ('returns') scoped to a product, but it omits that results are paginated (despite pageSize/pageNumber parameters), how results are ordered, and that additional filters exist (auditLogType, fromUtcDateTime, toUtcDateTime). The phrase 'optionally filtered by Config and/or Environment' actually under-describes the filtering capability, which could mislead an agent into thinking those are the only filters.

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?

A single 23-word sentence that states the core purpose and primary scoping/filtering in one pass. There is no filler, redundant phrasing, or repetition of schema content — every word earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally viable: it identifies the required product scope and two filters, while the schema documents the remaining parameters. However, it lacks behavioral context not covered by the schema — pagination behavior, result ordering, and the existence of auditLogType/date-range filters — leaving an agent to discover those capabilities only after opening the schema.

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%, so every parameter already carries a description and the baseline is 3. The description adds modest framing by tying productId to the product scope and configId/environmentId to the named filters, but it adds no meaning beyond the schema and even omits mention of the type and date-range parameters.

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 a specific verb and resource ('returns the list of Audit log items') with a clear scope ('for a given Product'), and clarifies the two primary optional filters (Config and/or Environment). It is clear, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with the closely related sibling list-organization-auditlogs, so an agent must infer the product-level vs organization-level distinction from the sibling name alone.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list-organization-auditlogs, or when the optional filters (Config/Environment) are appropriate. The usage context is implied by the product scoping, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing instructions.

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