get_panel_logs

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

The description indicates a read-only operation (reading logs) without contradictions, as there are no annotations. It provides some behavioral context (examples of log types) but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or limitations beyond that.

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 concise sentence in Chinese, efficiently conveying purpose and examples. It is well front-loaded but could benefit from slightly more structure, such as separating use case from examples.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers essential information: what logs are retrieved and an auditing use case. The sibling tools provide context, making the description fairly complete.

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?

The input schema already provides a complete description of the 'limit' parameter, including default and range. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema conveys, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it reads Baota panel operation logs, listing specific examples like login records, configuration changes, and software installations. This precisely identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_app_logs or get_nginx_logs.

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?

It mentions the tool is suitable for auditing who operated the panel and when, providing a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives, leaving some inference to the agent.

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