GetDIJobLog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('查看') but doesn't describe traits like whether it's read-only (implied by '查看' but not explicit), pagination behavior (hinted by 'PageNumber' parameter but not explained), error handling, or output format. This is a significant gap for a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema.

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, efficient sentence in Chinese ('查看数据集成同步任务的运行日志') that directly states the purpose without waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., by hinting at key parameters).

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values (logs format), behavioral aspects like pagination or read-only nature, or how to interpret parameters like 'NodeType' in context. For a log retrieval tool with multiple inputs, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly (e.g., 'FailoverId', 'Id', 'PageNumber', 'NodeType'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., 'Id' vs 'DIJobId') or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 '查看数据集成同步任务的运行日志' clearly states the purpose (viewing logs for data integration sync tasks) with a specific verb ('查看') and resource ('运行日志'), but it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'GetTaskInstanceLog' or 'ListTaskInstanceOperationLogs', which might also retrieve logs. It's adequate but lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after a job run), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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