apps_activities_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get logs' implying a read operation, but does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, data scope (e.g., per-app filtering beyond the required app_id), or whether logs are real-time or historical.

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, efficient and to the point, with no wasted words. It clearly communicates the core action, though it might benefit from slightly more context.

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?

Despite high schema coverage and an output schema, the description omits high-level context such as the purpose of filtering parameters (e.g., source, date range) and the nature of returned logs. A tool with 11 parameters deserves a description that summarizes key capabilities beyond the bare minimum.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning; it simply states the tool's purpose without elaborating on any parameters.

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 retrieves logs for a specified workflow app, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('logs'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'ai_apps_list' (which lists apps) and apps_manifest_* (which manage app manifests).

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 alternative logging or app-related tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or comparisons with siblings.

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