obs_sls_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses automatic _namespace_ filtering, default level=ERROR, and trace_id behavior. However, it does not mention return format, pagination, rate limits, or whether results are ordered. It also does not explicitly state it's a read-only operation (though implied by 'query').

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 (three paragraphs with clear separation of environment, query modes, and defaults). Every sentence adds value. Minor nit: environment constraint could be consolidated for brevity, but overall well-structured and front-loaded.

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 9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description does a good job covering environment constraints, query modes, and default level. However, it lacks documentation for time-range parameters (from_time, to_time, time_range), limit, and system, and does not describe the output schema behavior that exists. A complete description would cover all parameter behaviors and return value structure.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of trace_id, keyword, level, environment, and the two-phase query approach. However, it doesn't explain time_range, from_time, to_time, limit, or system parameters in detail. The narrative context adds meaning beyond the schema titles but leaves some parameters underspecified.

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 tool queries Alibaba Cloud SLS logs, provides the exact project name, and distinguishes it from the Loki-based alternative. The verb '查询' (query) combined with the specific resource '阿里云 SLS 日志' makes the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly states this is only for cn Pangu prod (environment=prod), and instructs to use obs_log_query(region='cn') for non-prod environments. It also specifies two query modes: trace_id for two-stage ERROR/WARN + full trace, or keyword otherwise. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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