Logger Modules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. "列出" weakly implies a read-only operation, but there is no statement about session/auth requirements, the host/port/profile targeting implied by the schema, or whether results are scoped or paged.

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 four-word sentence is certainly not bloated, but its brevity stems from under-specification rather than disciplined editing. It is front-loaded and waste-free, yet there is nothing of substance to be concise about.

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, so return values need not be explained, and all four optional params are covered by the schema. What remains missing is any hint of prerequisites (login/session profile), environment targeting, or relation to the other logger_* tools, leaving the definition too thin for a tool in a 100+ sibling namespace.

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 host, port, scheme, and profile are already documented in the schema with defaults and format hints (e.g. 5667 HTTPS / 5666 HTTP). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does the work.

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 gives a verb and resource ("列出日志模块" / list log modules), which is more than a bare restatement of the name. However, it never clarifies what a "module" is or how this differs from the adjacent logger_list / logger_debuglog / logger_export tools, leaving the boundary fuzzy.

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 when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of alternatives such as logger_list or logger_debuglog. The agent must guess the selection criteria entirely from the tool name.

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