Get System Event Log

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful content scoping (reboot/upgrade event types), but says nothing about time ranges, pagination, retention limits, or ordering — details that matter for a log query.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and appends only the scope examples. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

With an output schema present and no parameters, the description need not explain return values, so it is minimally complete. The gap is disambiguation: among roughly a dozen sibling *log tools, an agent gets no help choosing this one, which is the main thing a definition in this cluster should do.

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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and the schema coverage is 100%.

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 states a specific verb and resource (获取系统事件日志) and narrows the content with examples (重启/升级等), so an agent knows this returns system-level reboot/upgrade events rather than traffic or auth logs. It does not, however, name or contrast with any of the many sibling log tools (get_admin_operation_log, get_terminal_log, etc.), so differentiation is left to inference.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the other log-retrieval siblings, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The parenthetical examples hint at scope but do not constitute usage guidance.

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