acs_get_boot_log

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'get boot log' without disclosing any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, output format, or side effects. The description carries the full burden for transparency and fails to provide meaningful details beyond the basic operation.

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 sentence with no fluff, and it is front-loaded with the action. However, it is almost a direct translation of the tool name and could include a bit more context without becoming verbose, so a slight deduction applies.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and only one optional parameter, the description is sparse. It does not explain what the boot log contains, whether it requires a device selection, or how it differs from trace/error logs. For a tool with many siblings, this missing context is a notable 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 schema has 100% coverage for the single optional 'lines' parameter, with its own description '返回最后 N 行' (returns last N lines). The tool description adds no parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles the burden.

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 ACS boot 日志' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (ACS boot log), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like acs_get_trace_log and acs_get_error_log. The verb+resource specificity fully clarifies the tool's purpose.

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 the many sibling log tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites such as requiring a connected device. There is no context about whether this is for the server or a device, leaving the agent without direction.

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