Dpanel Log List

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no read-only confirmation, no pagination behavior, no permission requirements, no indication of log volume or retention. A two-word restatement of the name leaves an agent with zero behavioral context.

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?

It is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The single fragment carries no actionable information and is not front-loaded with anything useful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, but for a paginated list tool with two undocumented parameters and no annotations, the definition leaves too much unspecified for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 0% for both page and page_size, and the description adds nothing about them — no default values (1 and 50), no pagination semantics, no maximum page size. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 'DPanel 系统日志列表' merely restates the tool name and title (log list) without specifying what a log entry contains, what the list covers, or how it differs from sibling list tools like dpanel_cron_log_list or dpanel_compose_log. It is essentially a tautology of the identifier.

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 whatsoever on when to use this tool versus the many other list/log tools in the sibling set (dpanel_cron_log_list, dpanel_compose_log). No prerequisites, no scope conditions, no alternatives named.

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