ACTION_LOG

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the key traits: output destination (Logcat, tag HabitatLog), exclusion from the workflow run log, ${var} interpolation in string parameters, and a variable-snapshot JSON result. It does not discuss failure semantics of the node itself (that lives only in the schema's on_error/require fields), which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the destination constraint and the alternative routing, then the interpolation/return notes. It is compact and earns its sentences, but the stray doubled punctuation and the dense packing of three distinct facts into one line slightly reduce polish.

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 five-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: where the log goes, what it does not do, how interpolation works, and what shape the result takes (variable snapshot JSON). Only the per-node error/timeout behavior is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given 100% coverage there.

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 level, require, on_error and node_timeout_ms are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the ${var} interpolation note, which the schema also mentions for message, so it contributes little beyond the structured fields; baseline 3 applies.

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?

"输出一条调试日志" gives a specific verb plus resource, and the description immediately bounds the scope: it writes only to Logcat under tag HabitatLog and never to the workflow run log. It also names the sibling actions to use instead when the goal is user-visible output, so an agent can separate it from ACTION_TOAST/ACTION_WORKSPACE without inspecting schemas.

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 states an explicit when-not condition (do not use this if the user should see the message) and names the concrete alternatives, ACTION_TOAST and ACTION_WORKSPACE. It also implicitly scopes use to developer/diagnostic tracing by calling it a debug log written only to Logcat.

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