cipp_list_logs

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'list CIPP application logs' without disclosing behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, scope (e.g., tenant-wide?), rate limits, or whether listing mutates state. The default behavior of retrieving 'recent logs' is implied by the parameter but not explicitly stated.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. However, it may be overly concise at the expense of helpful detail. Still, it earns a high score for conciseness because every word is functional.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain the return format or contents of the logs. It does not. The tool is simple (one optional param), but the lack of behavioral detail and result description makes it less complete. Siblings like 'cipp_list_audit_logs' might have richer descriptions.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'dateFilter' parameter with its format and usage. The description adds no extra semantic information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'list' and resource 'CIPP application logs'. However, the sibling 'cipp_list_audit_logs' suggests a potential distinction between application logs and audit logs, which is not clarified. The purpose is clear but lacks differentiation from a closely related tool.

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 'cipp_list_audit_logs'. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context about appropriate usage scenarios. The agent receives no help in deciding which log tool to invoke.

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