eda_sys_log_export

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only gives the signature and the Chinese phrase '导出日志' (export logs), without disclosing side effects (e.g., writes to a file, console output), whether it is read-only, or any other behavioral traits. The void return is implied by the signature but not elaborated.

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 extremely short, consisting of the signature and a two-character Chinese phrase. It is efficient in word count but under-specified; the signature is front-loaded but lacks explanatory content. It is not overly verbose, but the brevity borders on incomplete rather than concise.

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?

Without annotations or an output schema, the description is the only source of context. It does not explain what 'export' entails (e.g., destination, return behavior), how to specify log types, or any effects on the system. For a tool with a side-effectful action like export, this is insufficient.

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% (both 'args' and 'windowId' have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds the types parameter signature (ESYS_LogType or array) but does not explain how it maps to the 'args' array or provide format details beyond the schema. It adds minimal value over the 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?

The description states the verb 'export' and the resource 'logs', and the signature clarifies it takes an optional types parameter. It is distinguishable from siblings like eda_sys_log_add, eda_sys_log_clear, and eda_sys_log_find by the export action, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative log-related tools (add, clear, find, sort). The description simply states it exports logs, with no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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