Logger Export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it only discloses that this is a write operation. It says nothing about where the export lands, whether it overwrites existing files, what permissions or session profile are needed, or how long it takes — all critical for a mutating tool.

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?

Waste-free and front-loaded, but seven characters is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. The one parenthetical about write semantics is the only substantive content.

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?

An output schema exists and parameters are documented, but the description never explains the export target, file location, or result semantics, and offers no routing versus the many neighboring logger_* tools. For a write operation with zero annotations, this is too thin.

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 100%, so level, module, host, port, scheme, and profile are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no meaning beyond that (e.g., that level/module scope which log entries are exported), so the baseline 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?

States a verb plus resource ("导出日志"), which is clearer than a tautology, but "export" is ambiguous — export to a file, a download URL, or return content is unspecified — and nothing distinguishes it from siblings such as logger_list, logger_archive_query, logger_clear, or diagnostic_export.

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 indication of when to use this instead of logger_list, logger_archive_query, or diagnostic_export, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The agent must infer selection from the name alone in a catalog of 150+ tools.

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