asset_maintenance_log_list

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses sort order, default status behavior, the exact semantics of totalCostRappen (sum over completed entries only), and the saved-view seam. This significantly enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 long but densely informative and well-structured: purpose and ordering first, then filters, then return semantics. Every sentence adds operational value, and the length is justified by the large parameter surface.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly explains the return shape (items, total, totalCostRappen) and the special aggregation rule. Combined with parameter semantics and behavioral transparency, the agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: each major filter is explained, including status values, date-window semantics, hasCost behavior, and the fields covered by the case-insensitive search. Only workspaceId is left implicit, which is reasonable for a required workspace-scoped parameter.

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 states a precise verb and resource ('List maintenance log entries (H08)') with explicit ordering and scope. It is clearly distinguished from related sibling tools like asset_maintenance_log_get or asset_maintenance_log_create by focusing on listing with filters.

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 to use the tool, including the intended asset timeline read and a default status of 'completed'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the filter semantics and 'usual timeline read' hint provide strong practical guidance.

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