list_tickets_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (movement/change history with timestamps and users) and adds a notable behavioral instruction about not fabricating data on failure. However, it omits pagination behavior, sorting, or any limitation details, leaving gaps an agent may need to infer. The fabrication warning adds value beyond the basic list operation.

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 two sentences with zero fluff. The first sentence states the purpose and return content, front-loaded for quick scanning. The second sentence is a succinct but important warning about error handling. Both earn their place, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool is a list with optional pagination and date filters; the description explains the essence (returns history with timestamps and users) but does not mention pagination defaults, response structure, or error behavior beyond the fabrication warning. Without an output schema, an agent might be uncertain about the exact shape of the result, but the core purpose is covered adequately for a simple list tool.

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%, with each parameter (page, logDesde, logHasta, per_page) already documented in the schema. The description does not add extra parameter meaning or usage hints, so it remains at the baseline 3. No compensation needed since the schema is complete.

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 it lists ticket activity logs across all tickets, distinguishing from siblings like list_tickets (which lists tickets themselves) and other resource logs (clients, internet connections). It also specifies the return content: movement/change history with timestamps and users, making the purpose explicit and non-confusable.

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 context is clear from the name and description—this is for ticket logs, not alternatives explicitly mentioned. It does not provide when-not-to-use or alternative routing, but the purpose is obvious enough that an agent would select this for ticket log queries. Lacks explicit exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous.

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