List Activity Logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety and side-effect expectations. The description adds that filtering and pagination are supported, which is useful but minimal. It does not describe response format, auth, or rate limits, but annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and scope, then adds the key capabilities (filtering and pagination) efficiently.

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 description is minimal but adequate for a read-only listing tool with a fully documented schema. It does not specify the return structure or pagination mechanics, and there is no output schema, so the agent must infer the response format. However, annotations cover safety and the schema covers parameters, making it not critically incomplete.

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%, with every parameter (limit, offset, site_id, category, language, id_api_key, id_initiated_by) individually described. The description itself only mentions generic filtering/pagination, adding no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('activity logs for your Kinsta company'), clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It mentions filtering and pagination, which adds scope. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like kinsta_logs_get, but the name and 'for your Kinsta company' make the target clear.

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 usage for company-level activity logs via 'for your Kinsta company' and mentions filtering/pagination, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use conditions. No exclusions are given, leaving some inference to the agent.

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