get_ddns_log

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the operation is read-only. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the name, such as what the log contains, time range, or pagination behavior.

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, clear phrase with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given the simple nature (no parameters, read-only, output schema exists), the description is minimally sufficient but lacks any contextual details about the log's contents or use cases. It could be more complete by mentioning what the log tracks or when to access it.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when no parameters exist, and the description doesn't need to explain parameter details.

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 '获取动态域名日志' clearly states the tool retrieves DDNS logs, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_ddns_config by the word 'log', though the differentiation is mostly inherent in the tool name itself.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or alternatives, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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