查询执行日志列表

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool supports pagination, filtering, and returns specific fields (triggerCode, handleCode, executor address, trigger time), offering meaningful behavioral context beyond a generic 'list' statement.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and includes no filler. Every clause adds value: purpose, filtering capabilities, return fields, and the follow-up tool reference.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete—it explains the returned fields and points to the next step (get_job_log_content). Minor gaps exist (e.g., pagination defaults, ordering), but these are partially covered by the schema's parameter defaults.

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% with all 7 parameters fully described. The description only restates the filter categories (executor group, task, status, time range) that map to existing schema properties, adding no additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 it performs paginated queries of task execution logs with filtering by group, task, status, and time range—a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings. It also mentions returning specific fields and points to get_job_log_content, making its role 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?

The description provides clear usage context by explaining that after listing logs, one can call get_job_log_content to view content, establishing a workflow and implicitly distinguishing this tool from the content viewer. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the intended alternative is clearly named.

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