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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does add the useful filter that only warn/error logs are returned, but it fails to state read-only behavior, return format, pagination, or ordering. This is a significant disclosure gap.

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 short, but the second English phrase 'Console logs.' is redundant and does not earn its place. The first clause is concise and clear, but the redundancy hurts overall structure.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not describe what the returned logs look like, whether it returns an array, how errors are handled, or the role of report_id. The context is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 0% and the description does not explain the report_id parameter. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional meaning, leaving the agent to infer that report_id identifies the report whose console logs should be fetched.

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 identifies the tool's verb (取得/get) and resource (Console logs), and further qualifies the scope as warn/error logs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_terminal_logs and get_network_errors.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool instead of the many sibling tools. It only restates the function in Chinese and English without mentioning alternatives or exclusions.

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