team_integration_logs

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, data freshness, or whether changes are real-time. The tool has pagination parameters (page, count) but no description of how pagination works or defaults beyond what's in the schema.

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 short sentence, which is concise but lacks sufficient detail. It is front-loaded with the core action, but the brevity forces omission of important usage context and behavioral notes. It earns a middle score because it is not verbose but also not fully informative.

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 having 7 parameters and an output schema, the description does not explain what 'integration activity logs' contain (e.g., events, timestamps, apps involved). It does not mention that 'team_id' is required for org-level tokens, and lacks guidance on pagination or filtering. The description is incomplete for a tool with this complexity.

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 additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. It does not explain the purpose of 'team_id' for org-level apps beyond the schema comment, nor does it clarify the 'change_type' filter values.

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' and the resource 'integration activity logs for the current team'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'team_access_logs' (access logs vs integration logs). However, the phrase 'current team' is slightly misleading because the 'team_id' parameter allows specifying a different team, so it's not strictly limited to the current team.

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 alternatives like 'team_access_logs'. There is no mention of required permissions, prerequisites, or context such as needing an org-level token to use 'team_id'. The description does not help the agent decide whether this is the right tool.

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