get_admin_log

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It reveals read-only nature and admin requirement, but omits details like pagination, filtering behavior, or response structure. Does not disclose potential rate limits or scope (per chat from parameter).

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?

Single sentence, extremely concise. However, given the tool has 3 parameters and no annotations, this brevity results in under-specification. It earns its place but lacks structure (e.g., no parameter listings or usage notes).

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?

Despite presence of output schema, description does not address return values or behavior. Context signals show 3 params and no annotations, requiring richer description to compensate. Description is incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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%, meaning description does not explain any of the 3 parameters (chat, limit, search). Without description, agent cannot infer their meaning or constraints. Baseline should compensate but fails.

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?

Description clearly states verb '读取' (read) and resource '管理操作日志' (management logs) for groups/channels. It distinguishes from sibling tools, which are mostly about messaging, contacts, or chat settings, as no other sibling mentions logs.

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?

Only mentions requirement of admin privileges. No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like search_messages or get_chat_info, nor when not to use it.

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