acs_get_trace_log

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

No annotations are present, leaving the description as the sole source of behavioral disclosure. The description provides only the basic 'get' action, with no details on return format, side effects (e.g., whether the log is cleared), pagination, or security considerations. This is inadequate for full transparency.

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, focused sentence with no redundancy. It is concise and to the point, but the extreme brevity limits the information conveyed. It earns a 4 because it is efficient, though it could benefit from slightly more context without becoming verbose.

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 has no output schema, no annotations, and only a minimal description. It does not explain what a 'trace log' is, what the output structure looks like, or how it relates to sibling log tools. For a tool with a single optional parameter, the description feels incomplete and leaves many context 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 input schema contains one parameter ('lines') with a description ('返回最后 N 行'), giving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 trace 日志' clearly states the action (get) and resource (ACS trace log). It is specific enough to identify the tool's purpose, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like acs_get_boot_log or acs_get_error_log, which share the same structure. Therefore, it stops short of a 5.

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 vs alternatives. The description does not mention any scenario, precondition, or exclusion. There is no reference to other log-related tools, so an agent has no basis for choosing this over acs_get_boot_log or acs_get_error_log.

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