set_logger_level

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a write operation ('设置' means set/configure) but doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects. The note '暂未实现' (not yet implemented) in the returns section adds confusion about current functionality.

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 appropriately concise with a clear purpose statement followed by structured parameter documentation. However, the returns section includes implementation notes ('暂未实现') that don't belong in a tool description and create confusion. The structure is functional but could be cleaner.

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 write operation with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after setting the level, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. The '暂未实现' note further undermines completeness by suggesting the tool may not work as described.

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 description provides clear semantic meaning for all three parameters (pid as process ID, name as logger name, level as log level) with helpful examples (e.g., pid as string '12345'). With 0% schema description coverage, this fully compensates by explaining what each parameter represents, though it doesn't specify valid level values or name formats.

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's purpose as '设置logger级别' (set logger level), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_logger_info (which reads logger info) by being a write operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools that might exist in other contexts.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active process), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like get_logger_info. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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