Get Admin Operation Log

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

readOnlyHint=true in the annotations already establishes this as a safe read, and the description adds nothing beyond that — no scope of the log, retention window, ordering, or pagination behavior. Since an output schema exists, return-value detail is not required, but the description still contributes no behavioral context.

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?

A single short phrase with no filler and the resource is front-loaded. It is not bloated, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 no-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the definition is minimally sufficient to invoke correctly. It falls short only in failing to position this log against its many sibling log tools.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema-completeness baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter syntax the description could or should clarify.

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 '获取管理员操作日志' merely restates the tool name and title (Get Admin Operation Log) verbatim in another language, adding no specificity. It does not distinguish this log from the many sibling log-retrieval tools such as get_auth_log, get_system_event_log, or get_terminal_log.

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 the other log tools in the sibling set (auth, system event, DHCP, DDNS, WAN PPPoE, wireless terminal, etc.). The agent is left to infer that this returns only administrator operation records, with no stated conditions or alternatives.

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