list_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering and pagination capabilities, but does not disclose default behavior (e.g., whether all logs are returned if no filter is given), return format, error handling, or any access permissions. This is minimal transparency for an unannotated tool.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that gets straight to the point. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 straightforward list operation, the description plus schema cover the basics. However, without an output schema or annotations, it would benefit from mentioning the return type or default behavior, and from differentiating the scope (all Arc logs) relative to sibling log lists.

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%, with each parameter clearly described (top, skip, filter, select, orderby). The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, such as formatting examples or constraints, but the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 Arc logs, which is a specific verb and resource. It mentions filtering and pagination, giving a sense of scope, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_error_logs or get_transaction_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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer list_logs over get_log or get_error_logs, nor any mention of use cases or prerequisites.

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