read_session_log

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

Only annotations missing; description enumerates returned fields but does not disclose that it's read-only, side effects, or permissions. Adequate but not extra.

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?

Three sentences, concise and front-loaded with purpose. Could be structured slightly better but overall efficient.

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?

Given no output schema and 5 parameters, description provides sufficient context about purpose and return values, though could mention output format hints.

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 baseline 3 is appropriate. Description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what schema provides.

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 it reads session conversation logs, lists specific returned fields, and identifies use case in multi-turn orchestration, which distinguishes it from siblings like poll_session.

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?

Explicitly says '用于多轮编排时检测目标 session 的处理状态' providing clear usage context, but does not specify when not to use or offer alternatives.

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