lc_list_group_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool lists audit logs; it does not mention read-only nature, pagination, ordering, time range, or any side effects. For a simple list operation, this is minimal disclosure.

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 of 9 words, front-loading the action and resource. It is highly concise with no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool has 2 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the optional limit parameter, describe the return format, or mention any constraints like pagination. More details are needed for an agent to use it effectively.

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 0%, meaning the description must add meaning. It hints that group_id identifies the group, but does not explain the limit parameter or its default value. The context of 'for one organization group' provides only slight value beyond the schema.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'audit logs', and the scope 'for one organization group'. This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like lc_list_audit_logs (which likely lists all audit logs) and lc_list_groups (which lists groups).

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 implies that a group_id is needed but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lc_list_audit_logs or lc_list_groups. There is no mention of prerequisites, optimal scenarios, or exclusions.

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