post--v1-analytics-logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List logs' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the logs are in. The description mentions nothing about behavioral traits beyond the basic action, leaving critical operational context unspecified.

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?

While 'List logs' is extremely concise, it's under-specified rather than appropriately sized. Two words cannot adequately describe an 8-parameter tool with complex filtering and pagination capabilities. This isn't effective conciseness—it's omission of necessary information that would help the agent understand and use the tool correctly.

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 complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'logs' means in this context, what the output looks like, how pagination works, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool with rich input schema but no other structured guidance, 'List logs' provides insufficient context 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 75%, which is relatively high, so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter information. The description 'List logs' doesn't explain any parameters beyond what the schema already documents (e.g., date ranges, events, pagination). It neither compensates for the 25% coverage gap nor enhances understanding of parameter purposes.

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 'List logs' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'post--v1-analytics-logs'. It provides the basic verb 'list' but doesn't specify what type of logs (analytics logs), what resource they belong to, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'post--v1-analytics-metrics' or 'post--v1-analytics-usage-metrics'. The purpose is minimally stated but lacks differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'post--v1-analytics-metrics', 'get--v3-domain-stats-total'), there's no indication of what makes this tool unique for listing logs, what context it applies to, or any prerequisites. This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.

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