Get Auth Log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the description only needs to add context. It contributes the record domain (PPPoE/VPN authentication) but says nothing about volume, time span, or truncation of the returned log set — relevant since the tool has no filtering parameters.

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 clause with the resource named first and the scope qualifier immediately after. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

No parameters and an existing output schema mean return-format details are not required, and readOnlyHint covers safety. The definition is nearly complete for its complexity, with only the absence of any note on log recency/volume keeping it from a 5.

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 baseline is 4; the schema is empty and fully described. The description correctly adds no parameter claims rather than inventing filters the tool does not support.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('获取认证日志') and immediately scopes it with '(PPPoE/VPN 认证记录)', so an agent knows this returns authentication records rather than generic traffic. It does not name or contrast with the closest sibling get_wan_pppoe_log, which is a plausible source of confusion, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance, despite a large sibling set of log getters (get_wan_pppoe_log, get_system_event_log, get_admin_operation_log). Usage is only implied by the parenthetical content hint.

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