eda_sys_log_sort

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the filtering operation also updates the front-end if the log panel is open and that it returns a Promise of log lines, but it does not mention permissions, side effects beyond the UI, or read-only status. The provided remarks add some transparency but are not comprehensive.

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 well-structured: it leads with the signature, gives a one-line purpose, then adds relevant remarks and return information. No redundant or filler content is present.

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 filter/read tool, the description covers the purpose, the main parameter, the return type, and a notable UI side effect. However, it omits guidance on when to use this versus log-find alternatives, does not enumerate log types, and lacks annotation support, leaving some gaps for agent decision-making.

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 schema's args parameter is generic, but the description's signature reveals the actual semantic parameter: optional ESYS_LogType or an array of them. It does not enumerate possible ESYS_LogType values or explain how windowId interacts with filtering, though windowId is documented in the schema. This adds moderate 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 provides a concrete TypeScript signature and the Chinese summary '筛选并获取日志条目' (filter and retrieve log entries), making the tool's purpose clear. It differentiates from siblings like eda_sys_log_add, eda_sys_log_clear, and eda_sys_log_export through the notion of filtering, though it does not explicitly name 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 alternatives such as eda_sys_log_find or get_console_logs. The only contextual note describes the front-end behavior when the log panel is open, which is useful but does not help an agent choose between sibling log tools.

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