No language derived from natural process can avoid ambiguity, in this case you pointed out syntactic ambiguity.

So when encountering ambiguous sentences (which I have to remind you again exist in all natural languages), you can either stress different part in the sentence when speaking or add more information which is done by modifying words in a sentence in agglutinative language like Finnish and adding separate sentences in analytic languages like modern Chinese.

I'm not an expert in linguistics, but I believe all languages are equal in terms of functionality. Because there doesn't seem to be a significant amount of difference in intelligence among humans from all parts of the world. Thus this is only a result of logic deduction.

GRAMMAR IS NOT JUST ABOUT HAVING MULTIPLE FORMS OF A SAME WORD TO MAKE THE MEANING MORE CLEAR. That's only the characteristic of agglutinative and inflected languages, not the definition of GRAMMAR.

In linguistics, the grammar of a natural language is its set of structural constraints on speakers' or writers' composition of clauses, phrases, and words.

In linguistic typology, an analytic language is a language that primarily conveys relationships between words in sentences by way of helper words (particles, prepositions, etc.) and word order, AS OPPOSED TO using inflections (changing the form of a word to convey its role in the sentence). For example, the English-language phrase "The cat chases the ball" conveys the fact that the cat is acting on the ball analytically via word order. This can be contrasted to synthetic languages, which rely heavily on inflections to convey word relationships (e.g., the phrases "The cat chases the ball" and "The cat chased the ball" convey different time frames via changing the form of the word chase). Most languages are not purely analytic, but many rely primarily on analytic syntax.

No one is better than another. They just do the same job in two different ways.