runtime_get_hook_logs

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

With no annotations, description should disclose behavioral traits like logging being ongoing, persistence, or effects of the 'clear' parameter. Only states it returns parameters and return values, missing critical context like what happens to logs after retrieval or if clearing is destructive.

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?

Single sentence in Chinese is concise and front-loads purpose. Could arguably include more structure like bullet points for usage notes, but not overly 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?

Description lacks context about the format of call records (e.g., timestamp, function call stack), the effect of clearing logs, and whether logs are accumulated across hook invocations. With no output schema and no annotations, this is insufficient for an agent to anticipate the tool's behavior fully.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so description adds minimal value over schema. The parameter descriptions in schema (filter by function name, clear after fetch) are self-explanatory. Description does not elaborate on format or behavior beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves call records of hooked functions, including parameters and return values, using specific verb '获取' and resource '已Hook函数的调用记录'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like runtime_hook_function which sets hooks, and other runtime tools.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as runtime_hook_function or js_trace_call_chain. Does not mention the prerequisite that functions must be hooked first or that logging must be enabled.

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