eda_sys_log_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral details itself. It only states the operation and that it returns void; it does not mention side effects, whether entries are persisted/visible to the user, failure behavior, or any permission requirements. 'Add' implies mutation, but that is not enough 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 compact and front-loaded, containing only the signature and a one-line purpose statement. There is no filler, and every part contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

For a simple logging utility, the signature and purpose provide the minimum needed to call it with a basic message argument. Still, there are clear gaps: no enum values for ESYS_LogType, no explanation of the windowId parameter, and no behavioral information such as whether the log is shown to the user or only stored.

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 description adds meaningful parameter detail through the signature 'message: string, type?: ESYS_LogType', clarifying that message is required and type is optional in positional order. This goes beyond the generic 'args' array and windowId descriptions in the schema. However, valid ESYS_LogType values are not enumerated, so the semantics are incomplete.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: '添加日志条目' (add log entry) and includes the full signature. Although it doesn't explicitly cross-reference sibling tools, the action 'add' is readily distinguishable from the related log tools clear, export, find, and sort.

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 intended usage is implied by the name and description: use this tool when you need to add a log entry. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no caveats about log visibility or persistence.

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