get_im_log

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as whether logs are real-time or historical, any time-range limitations, or how results are structured. It merely restates the purpose, contributing no transparency beyond the annotation.

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, concise phrase that is front-loaded with the key information. No wasted words and perfectly sized for a simple no-parameter getter.

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 tool is simple (no params, read-only, has output schema), so the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage context or any mention of how it fits among the many log retrieval siblings, making it incomplete for an agent deciding between get_im_log and similar 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 has zero parameters, so the schema already fully defines the input space. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the baseline of 4 applies since no parameters exist.

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 IM 上下线记录' clearly states the tool retrieves IM online/offline records. It uses a specific verb (获取/get) and a specific resource (IM online/offline logs), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_arp_log and get_url_browsing_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 alternatives. With many sibling get_* log tools, the description does not explain the intended scenario (e.g., monitoring IM connectivity) or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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