Server logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions default row limit (50), max (100), and substring search behavior, but does not cover auth requirements, response format, pagination beyond offset, or explicit read-only confirmation (though 'GET' implies it). This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences with the endpoint and critical constraint front-loaded. Efficient overall, though the Chinese use-case phrase could be considered extraneous for a broader audience, but it does not dilute the core guidance.

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 calling constraints (filters, limits) but omits output/return format (no output schema), error behavior, and explicit pagination semantics. For a simple GET logs endpoint it is sufficient for making a correct call, but not fully complete for an agent that needs to interpret results.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating the mutual-exclusivity requirement (module OR search) and clarifying search is a substring on message/data, which goes beyond the schema's simple field descriptions.

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?

Description specifies a concrete action ('GET') on a clear resource ('logs'), names the endpoint, and gives a specific use case (查某某报错/最近日志). This distinguishes it from siblings (catalog, holdings, grid) which target different data domains.

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?

Explicitly states the mandatory condition ('Must pass module or search') and a negative condition ('Do not call with empty filters'). Also provides a usage context ('查某某报错/最近日志'), giving the agent clear guidance on when to invoke this tool.

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