日志关键信息提取

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the operation is a cheap, token-saving extraction, and details the information categories produced for each profile. It does not describe the output format or error behavior, but for a read-only extraction tool the description covers the main behavioral expectations.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler: the action and object come first, followed by the profile details and a purpose note. Every clause contributes to understanding what the tool does and why to use it.

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 tool is simple (3 optional params, no nested objects) and the schema already documents all parameters, so the description does not need to repeat schema details. The only notable omission is the output representation, but the per-profile content list gives the agent enough expectation for this utility.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping each profile enum value to concrete extracted fields (pds: error codes/stages/timing/resources/known issues; cdt: IDCODE/done bit/verify; sim: failure markers), and it hints at the log/logPath duality by mentioning both log text and log file.

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 uses a specific verb ('抽取'/'extract') and resource (日志/log), and enumerates the per-profile extracted content (pds, cdt, sim), making its function clear. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast against them, but its role as a log post-processing utility is distinct enough among the FPGA workflow siblings.

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?

The phrase '用于对落盘日志二次廉价提取' explicitly establishes when to use the tool: for secondary, low-cost extraction from on-disk logs. It does not state when-not-to-use or name alternatives, but the context is clear and no exclusion is needed for this simple utility.

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