get_astrbot_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool can operate in two modes (immediate historical retrieval vs. live streaming via SSE), mentions specific API endpoints (/api/log-history, /api/live-log), and describes time-based triggering. It doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, but provides substantial operational context.

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 concise and well-structured: a brief purpose statement followed by two bullet points that clearly explain the conditional behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and simple parameters, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the dual-mode operation and API endpoints well. The main gap is the undocumented 'max_events' parameter, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand when and how to use the tool.

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 semantics of 'wait_seconds' thoroughly (immediate vs. streaming behavior based on value). However, it doesn't mention 'max_events' at all, leaving one of the two parameters undocumented. The description adds significant value for one parameter but misses the other.

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 tool '获取 AstrBot 日志' (gets AstrBot logs), which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from potential sibling tools that might also retrieve logs or differentiate between historical vs. live log retrieval. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what kind of logs or scope.

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 explicit guidance on when to use different behaviors based on the 'wait_seconds' parameter: immediate return for historical logs vs. streaming live logs. This gives clear context for parameter-driven usage. However, it doesn't mention when to use this tool versus sibling tools like 'get_platform_session_messages' or other logging-related tools that might exist.

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