cigchat_wa_call_logs

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the required 'Manage Team' scope, the endpoint, and pagination behavior. However, it does not state that it is read-only (though GET implies it), nor describe response format or error behavior. It adds some behavioral context 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 a single sentence that conveys purpose, endpoint, and scope without any fluff. Every element (GET, paginated, workspace, scope) is meaningful and contributes to understanding.

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?

The tool is a simple list operation with 7 optional, clearly documented filter parameters. The description covers the core purpose, pagination, endpoint, and required scope. It does not describe the return payload, but that is somewhat mitigated by the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation. Given the schema richness, the description is adequate.

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 each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds no param-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides; 'paginated' loosely relates to page/limit but is already evident from the param names. 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 opens with 'Get paginated WhatsApp call logs for the workspace' — a specific verb, resource, and scope. Including the endpoint and required scope ('Manage Team') further clarifies the operation. There are no sibling tools for call logs, so it is unambiguous.

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 clearly states the context (workspace-level call logs, pagination) and the required permission scope. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but since no other tool handles call logs, usage is implied without confusion. This is more than the 'no guidance' case but not fully explicit.

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