Logger Archive Query

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether it requires an authenticated session, whether the host/port/profile parameters target a remote NAS, or how failures are surfaced.

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?

A single short sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, but for a tool with four parameters and no annotations it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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?

The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described, but the definition still leaves the agent without any sense of what the configuration contains, when it is relevant, or how it relates to the sibling logger_archive_set tool.

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?

All four parameters (host, port, scheme, profile) have full descriptions in the schema, covering 100% of coverage. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting semantics beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (查询/query) and resource (日志归档配置/log archive configuration), which is marginally more informative than the name alone since it clarifies that the target is configuration rather than archived log contents. However, it offers no differentiation from sibling logger_archive_set or the other logger_* tools, leaving disposition to inference.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this tool versus alternatives such as logger_list, logger_modules, logger_archive_set, or logger_debuglog. No prerequisites or context for use are provided.

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