get_system_event_log

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful scope context beyond that by specifying that this log covers system events such as reboots and upgrades. It does not go into pagination or retention, but the output schema covers return structure, so the additional value is appropriate.

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 entire description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core action and clarifies scope with parenthetical examples, earning its place fully.

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 tool has no parameters, an output schema exists, and read-only behavior is annotated, this one-sentence description is sufficient. It tells the agent what the tool does and what kind of events are included, leaving no critical gaps.

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 baseline 4 applies. There is no parameter information needed, and the description does not add irrelevant parameter guidance.

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 uses a specific verb+resource pattern ('获取系统事件日志') and gives concrete examples of event types (重启/升级等), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling log tools like get_auth_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 parenthetical examples (重启/升级等) provide clear context for when this tool is relevant—system-level events rather than user/auth/DHCP logs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is implied and clear enough for simple selection.

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