get_ies_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action ('查看' - view) without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the output contains. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe and effective use.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (5 nested parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is incomplete. It states the purpose but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and parameter explanations. The output schema may cover return values, but the description doesn't provide enough context for effective tool selection and 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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds minimal semantic context by implying parameters for 'workspace' and 'IES instance'. However, it doesn't detail the 'cfg' parameter structure or explain the five nested parameters (ak, sk, workspace_name, endpoint, ies_name) beyond what the schema titles provide. The description partially compensates but leaves significant gaps.

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 '查看指定workspace中的指定IES实例的创建日志' clearly states the action ('查看' - view) and resource ('IES实例的创建日志' - IES instance creation logs) with specific scope ('指定workspace中的指定IES实例' - in a specified workspace and IES instance). It distinguishes from siblings like 'check_ies_status' (status check) and 'get_workflow_logs' (workflow logs), but doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for viewing creation logs of a specific IES instance in a workspace, but doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare with siblings like 'check_ies_status' for general status or 'get_workflow_logs' for workflow-specific logs.

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