team_integration_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states it is a read operation ('Get') without disclosing pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens when no logs exist. This leaves significant gaps.

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, easy-to-parse sentence that gets straight to the point. However, it is almost too minimal, sacrificing depth for brevity.

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?

With 7 optional parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not mention return format (though output schema exists) or how to effectively use parameters to filter results. The tool's purpose is clear, but lacking guidance makes it incomplete for effective use.

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 adds no parameter information. It does not explain the purpose of parameters like 'app_id', 'count', or 'page', leaving the agent to infer from names alone.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'integration activity logs', and the scope 'for the current team'. It is specific and distinct from sibling 'team_access_logs', which likely deals with access logs.

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 the tool is for retrieving integration activity, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives like 'team_access_logs'. No exclusions or context on when not to use it.

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