List controller alerts, events, or audit logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the time-window scoping and optional level filtering, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but the sentence is truncated at 'and row…' so the row/pagination behavior it was apparently about to disclose is never delivered.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, but it terminates in an ellipsis mid-clause, meaning the definition as shipped is incomplete rather than merely concise. Brevity here looks like truncation rather than editorial discipline.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and annotations cover safety. Still, a five-parameter log-query tool with a truncated description leaves the 'site' parameter and the actual row/pagination semantics unexplained, which an agent needs to call it correctly at scale.

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 60%: hours, limit and category are well documented in the schema, while 'site' has no description and 'level' is only vaguely labeled. The description gestures at time window, level filter, row limit and category, but adds almost no syntax or meaning beyond what those schema entries already provide. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the partial coverage.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Query controller site logs') and enumerates the three log categories ('alerts', 'events', 'audit'), which lets an agent distinguish it from list_* inventory tools and network_audit. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with explain_error or network_audit, so the differentiation is only partial. The trailing ellipsis leaves the purpose statement cut off mid-thought.

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 never says when to choose this tool over network_audit, explain_error, or other log-adjacent siblings, nor when not to use it. Choosing between the three categories is left entirely to the enum and its default. Usage is only inferable from the resource name, not stated.

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