get_app_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses auto-detection of log paths, fallback to manual path, and supported frameworks. However, it does not mention any side effects or authentication needs, but for a read-only tool this is acceptable. Clarity on limitations (no HTTP logs) adds transparency.

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?

The description is a single coherent paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then lists use cases, exclusions, and framework support. While comprehensive, it could be slightly more concise; however, every sentence contributes context.

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 description covers purpose, usage, and parameters well, but without an output schema, it lacks details about the return format (e.g., raw log lines, timestamps). It also doesn't mention file size limits or handling of large files. This gap reduces completeness for a tool with four parameters.

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%, but the description adds significant value: explaining the relationship between site_name and log_path, the framework enum behavior, and the fallback logic. This goes beyond the schema and aids correct invocation.

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 clearly states the tool reads application logs (business/program records) and explicitly distinguishes from get_nginx_logs by noting it does not include HTTP request logs. The verb '读取' (read) and resource '业务日志' (business logs) are specific.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use (troubleshooting SQL errors, interface exceptions, business logic errors, etc.) and when not to (HTTP logs, which should use get_nginx_logs). This provides clear context for tool selection.

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