team_access_logs

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

With no annotations, the description should clarify behavioral traits. It merely states 'Get the access logs' without disclosing read-only nature, pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or rate limits. Significant gaps remain, scoring 2.

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 concise sentence with no redundancy. However, it could be improved by front-loading key details like pagination. Still, it's efficient, scoring 4.

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's 6 parameters, pagination options, and output schema, the description is too brief. It doesn't explain what the logs contain (e.g., user, timestamp, IP) or how to interpret results. Incomplete for effective use, scoring 2.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already described. The description adds no additional semantic value. 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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'access logs', with scope 'current team'. It clearly conveys the tool's function but does not distinguish from similar sibling tools like team_integration_logs, resulting in a score of 4.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no mention of prerequisites or context for optimal use. The description lacks any usage direction, scoring 2.

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