get_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether the operation is read-only, any permission requirements, rate limits, or pagination. The description is too terse to convey key behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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 highly concise, consisting of a single relevant sentence. However, it could be slightly more structured by front-loading key information like the read-only nature. The brevity is efficient but leaves room for improvement without adding significant length.

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?

Given that there is no output schema and the tool has four optional parameters, the description should explain the output format, sorting, and any limits or pagination. It fails to mention that logs are typically sorted by time or that the 'limit' parameter controls results count. The description is incomplete for practical use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., default values, enum choices). It neither complements nor contradicts the schema, thus scoring at baseline.

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 '获取操作审计日志' clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'operation audit logs', which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like health_check or list_servers. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from any potential overlapping functionality, so it loses one point.

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 when to filter by server or operation type. It lacks any context about prerequisites, return behavior, or integration with other tools, making it difficult for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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