get_wireless_terminal_log

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation, so the description does not need to restate that. However, it adds no additional behavioral context, such as what data is returned, retention period, or any special conditions, leaving the agent without deeper insight 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 extremely concise (one short phrase) and front-loaded, but it is so minimal that it essentially duplicates the tool name. It under-specifies rather than providing efficient useful structure, landing between a perfectly concise summary and an unhelpful tautology.

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 with no parameters and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, among many sibling log retrieval tools, the description lacks any clarification of what constitutes a 'wireless terminal log' versus a general terminal log, leaving contextual ambiguity that is not resolved by other structured fields.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the schema is trivially complete. The description does not need to explain parameters. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because there are no parameter semantics to clarify.

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 '获取无线终端日志' is a literal translation of the tool name, clearly stating the verb (get) and resource (wireless terminal log). However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like get_terminal_log, leaving ambiguity about what specifically makes this wireless-specific.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_terminal_log or get_arp_log. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred, so the agent gets no decision-support information.

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