aida_log_review

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

无任何annotations提供，描述需承担全部行为披露责任。但仅说明是'记录审查结果'，未说明是否幂等、是否影响任务状态、有无副作用或返回确认信息。对于写操作类工具，缺乏关键行为特征披露。

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?

两句话结构紧凑，首句说明触发时机，次句说明功能，无冗余信息。但鉴于兄弟工具众多且缺乏annotations，信息量略显不足，故未给满分。

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?

虽有100% schema覆盖率，但无output schema和annotations，且面对9个兄弟工具（其中4个同为log前缀工具），两句话的描述不足以支撑AI智能体在复杂工具生态中做出准确选择，缺乏对其在审计链路中定位的完整说明。

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描述覆盖率达100%，参数含义已由schema充分定义（如issues'逗号分隔'等）。描述中的'审查结果'为参数提供了上下文语境，但未额外补充schema未涵盖的语法细节或示例，符合高schema覆盖率下的基准分。

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?

描述明确使用动词'记录'和资源'审查结果'，并限定触发场景为'完成一轮代码审查后'。但面对多个同类logging兄弟工具（log_bug, log_deviation等）时，未明确说明与它们的甄别标准（如是记录整体评审结论而非具体缺陷）。

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?

明确指触发时机'当你完成一轮代码审查后调用'，但未提供何时不应使用（如不应替代log_bug记录单个缺陷），也未说明与task_done或log_bug等工具的协作或互斥关系。

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