get_notification_log

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

The description merely restates the tool's name in Chinese and adds no behavioral context beyond what the readOnlyHint annotation already conveys. It doesn't disclose return format, log retention, or any other operational details.

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, compact phrase with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and front-loads 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?

For a zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it doesn't clarify what the push notification log contains or when to use this over sibling log/notification tools, leaving some contextual gap.

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 covers all input requirements (100% coverage). The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description doesn't need to explain anything further.

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 '获取推送通知日志' (Get push notification logs) clearly states a specific verb and resource. The inclusion of 'log' differentiates it from similar sibling tools like get_notifications, though it doesn't explicitly call out that distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_notifications, get_messages, or get_warnings. The description simply names the resource without explaining the intended use case or exclusions.

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