workflow_log

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not reveal any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The term '获取' (get) implies a read operation, but this is not explicit, and there is no mention of the result format or any potential limitations. The description carries the full burden but fails to provide sufficient 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 concise and well-structured, consisting of a single line stating the purpose followed by a clear parameter list. It avoids unnecessary elaboration and presents information in a front-loaded manner. Every sentence adds value, making it highly efficient for quick comprehension.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and parameter meanings adequately. However, it lacks any information about the return format, pagination, or examples of usage. Given the absence of an output schema, some indication of what the logs contain or how they are structured would improve completeness.

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 description adds meaningful context to both parameters: it explains that workflow_id is the workflow ID and workflow_type is an integer with specific mappings (1=query permission, 2=SQL online, 3=data archiving). This compensates for the 0% schema coverage, as the schema only defines types. The mapping of workflow_type values provides critical guidance that the schema alone does not offer.

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's purpose: '获取工单操作日志' (get workflow operation logs). It identifies the main action (retrieve logs) and resource (workflow operation logs), and the specific parameters help narrow down the scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling workflow tools, though the presence of 'log' in the name and the unique parameter set somewhat mitigate this.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites, exclusions, or hints about preferred contexts are provided. The description merely states the function without helping the agent decide when to invoke it over other workflow tools.

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