get_auth_log

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read operation. The description adds the specific log type (PPPoE/VPN authentication records), providing useful scoping beyond the annotation. It does not detail output format or other behaviors, but an output schema exists to cover that, and the annotation covers safety.

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 short sentence that front-loads the action and resource without any filler or redundancy. Every word contributes meaning.

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 zero-parameter read-only log retrieval tool with an output schema, the description is sufficient: it names the exact purpose and scope. The sibling context shows many log tools, and this one is uniquely identified as authentication logs for PPPoE/VPN.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the input schema covers everything trivially (100% coverage). There is no need for parameter explanations in the description, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 action ('获取' meaning 'get') and resource ('认证日志' meaning 'authentication logs'), with a parenthetical clarifying it covers PPPoE/VPN authentication records. This specific scope distinguishes it from sibling log tools like get_arp_log or get_dhcp_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?

The description provides clear context that this tool is for authentication logs specifically for PPPoE/VPN, which implies its use case. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the parenthetical scope offers some implicit differentiation.

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