mz_job_log

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

没有注释信息，描述承担了揭示行为的责任。它说明了读取范围（末尾若干行）、默认行数（200）以及日志位置（结果目录下的 .log），但未提及输出格式、可能的失败模式或读取是否安全。对于只读工具，这些信息部分足够，但仍不完整。

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?

描述简短精炼，先给出一句话功能概括，再列出参数说明，没有任何冗余。每一句都有实际价值，结构清晰，易于快速理解。

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?

工具结构简单（2 个参数、1 个必填），描述覆盖了核心行为、参数含义和默认值。虽然没有输出 schema，但“读取日志末尾若干行”已经暗示返回内容是日志文本，足够支持正确调用。缺失的部分主要是与兄弟工具的区分和异常行为说明。

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?

输入 schema 没有任何参数描述（覆盖率为 0%），描述中为 job_id 和 lines 补充了含义：job_id 是作业 id，lines 是读取末尾行数并默认 200。这远超 schema 提供的价值，足以帮助代理正确传参。

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?

描述明确说明了工具功能：读取作业日志末尾若干行，并指出 MIKE Zero 将进度写入结果目录的 .log 文件。有清晰的动词和资源，但没有与其他兄弟工具（如 mz_progress、mz_job_status）做显式区分，因此未达到 5 分。

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?

描述仅说明该工具读取日志尾部，未说明何时应使用 mz_job_log 而非 mz_progress 或 mz_job_status，也未提供替代工具或排除场景。缺少实际使用指导，只能从功能上推断用途。

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