get_workflow_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication (implied by ak/sk parameters but not stated), rate limits, output format (though output schema exists), or side effects like writing files to 'output_dir'. The description is minimal and offers no behavioral context.

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 phrase, which is concise but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It's front-loaded with the core action but lacks necessary details, making it more of a placeholder than a helpful summary. While not verbose, it fails to earn its place by adding value.

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 complexity (1 nested parameter with 6 sub-parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address authentication needs, output behavior (e.g., file writing to 'output_dir'), or how it differs from siblings. The output schema mitigates some gaps, but the description alone is inadequate for safe and effective use.

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%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'config' contains, the role of 'workspace_name' and 'submission_id', or optional fields like 'ak', 'sk', and 'output_dir'. With 1 parameter (a nested object with 6 sub-parameters) and no schema descriptions, this leaves parameters largely undocumented.

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 '获取工作流执行日志' (Get workflow execution logs) states the basic action but is vague about scope and format. It doesn't specify whether this retrieves all logs, filtered logs, or real-time logs, nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like 'check_workflow_run_status' or 'get_ies_events' that might also provide workflow-related information. The purpose is identifiable but lacks specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'check_workflow_run_status' and 'get_ies_events' that might overlap, there's no indication of prerequisites, timing (e.g., after submission), or exclusions. This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate contexts.

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