List logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the superuser-only access requirement, the default sort order, and gives a filter syntax example, which is useful. However, it does not mention response shape, pagination metadata, potential access errors, or any rate/volume considerations, so the behavioral picture is incomplete.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states what the tool does and its key capabilities, and the second gives a concrete filter example and the default sort order. Every sentence earns its place.

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 that all parameters are optional, fully documented in the schema, and there is no output schema, the description is largely sufficient for an agent to make a correct call. The main gap is the lack of explicit alternative routing (e.g., when to use get_log or get_logs_stats instead), but the core invocation details are well covered.

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?

The input schema already documents all four parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing a concrete filter expression example ('level >= 4 && data.status >= 400') and clarifying the default sort behavior ('newest first'), which helps an agent construct valid and effective calls.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('application request/activity logs'), and the key operational features (pagination, filtering, sorting). It also adds the superuser restriction, which distinguishes access level from other list tools. This is unambiguous and effectively differentiates from siblings like get_log and get_logs_stats.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: listing logs with pagination, filtering, and sorting, with an example filter expression. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the sibling tools (e.g., get_log, get_logs_stats) are implied by the 'list' framing.

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