taiga_webhooklogs_list

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('List webhook logs') without mentioning pagination, default limits, response structure, authentication requirements, or whether omitting the webhook parameter returns all logs. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no redundant words. 'List webhook logs' is an immediate action statement, and 'Filter by webhook' adds necessary scope in one clause.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse to fully guide an agent. It does not explain what the returned logs contain, whether the webhook parameter is optional (schema says optional, but description doesn't state the default behavior), or any limitations. For a simple list tool, more context is expected.

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?

The schema provides a single parameter 'webhook' described as 'Webhook ID', and the tool description adds that it serves as a filter. This adds a small semantic layer (the parameter is a filter, not a resource locator) beyond the schema, but the schema already documents the parameter fully, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool's action ('List') and resource ('webhook logs'), and the filter criterion ('Filter by webhook') adds scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'taiga_webhooklogs_get', relying on the implied difference between 'list' and 'get'.

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 like 'taiga_webhooklogs_get' or 'taiga_webhooklogs_resend'. There is no mention of typical use cases, whether the webhook filter is optional, or any conditions under which this tool should be preferred.

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