log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context — that it auto-locates the StdOut path rather than requiring the user to supply one, and that output is tailed — but says nothing about failure modes (e.g., job not yet started, no output file).

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed immediately by the operational detail. Nothing is wasted.

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 needn't be described. However, for a 3-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, the description leaves how to supply a connection and job identifier, and the meaning of the tail count, to inference — it is adequate but incomplete.

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% for 3 parameters, so the description must carry the burden, and it doesn't. It hints at the 'tail' concept but never explains that the parameter controls the number of trailing lines, and the 'connection' and 'job_id' parameters are entirely unexplained.

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 specific verb+resource ('读取作业 stdout' / read job stdout) and adds a distinguishing behavior (auto-locating the StdOut path and tailing it), which separates it from siblings like exec or jobs. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus siblings such as exec, jobs, or status, nor any prerequisite or post-submit context. Usage is only weakly implied by the mention of job stdout.

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