list_clients_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'database record snapshots before modifications' with timestamps and users, and includes a caution against hallucinating data. However, it omits details such as pagination limits, ordering, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 very concise with two purposeful sentences and a warning. It front-loads the core purpose and return value. The structure is efficient with no filler. Could be slightly improved with structured bullets, but it earns a 4 for its lean design.

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?

Despite no output schema and 4 optional parameters, the description covers the return content (snapshots with timestamps and users) and the scope ('across all clients'). However, it lacks any mention of pagination behavior (e.g., max pages, default ordering) or how date filters affect results. For a log-list tool, this leaves some gaps in completeness.

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 the input schema already documents all 4 parameters (page, logDesde, logHasta, per_page). The description adds no additional meaning or context for the parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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' and clearly identifies the resource as 'change history logs across all clients.' It distinguishes from sibling log tools (e.g., list_tickets_log, list_internet_connections_log) by specifying the scope is client-related. The return value (snapshots before modifications with timestamps and users) is explicitly stated.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_client or list_tickets_log. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or comparisons to sibling tools. The only behavioral instruction is a warning about not fabricating data, which concerns failure handling rather than usage context.

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