team_access_logs

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it does not. It fails to mention that this is a read-only operation, whether pagination is supported (despite schema having pagination params), or any constraints like rate limits or required scopes.

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 overly concise to the point of being insufficient. One sentence sacrifices clarity and completeness, lacking any structure such as parameter explanations or usage notes.

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 complexity of 6 undocumented parameters and no behavioral guidance, the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists, the description does not bridge the gap for correct invocation, leaving the agent with minimal actionable information.

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% and the description provides no parameter meanings. Critical details like what 'before' represents (timestamp?), the purpose of 'cursor' vs 'page', and whether 'team_id' can override the current team are left unexplained.

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 specifies the action 'Get' and the resource 'access logs', with scope 'for the current team'. It distinguishes it from general team info tools, but does not differentiate from similar log tools like 'team_integration_logs', leaving room for ambiguity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'team_integration_logs' or 'team_info'. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., admin rights), or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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