list_change_order_job_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states it's a query operation, but doesn't reveal whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether results are paginated (though parameters suggest they are), or what format/log level the logs contain. For a logging tool with 6 parameters, this is insufficient behavioral 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 - just one Chinese phrase. While this is efficient, it's arguably too brief for a tool with 6 parameters. However, it's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no wasted words. The single sentence earns its place but leaves significant information gaps.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what kind of logs are returned, their format, or typical use cases. The sibling tools include multiple logging-related tools, making context even more important. The description fails to provide the necessary context for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool effectively.

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 67% (4 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., that jobSn is a sub-component of changeOrderSn) or provide examples of valid values. The baseline is 3 since the schema does most of the work, but the description doesn't compensate for the 33% coverage gap.

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 '查询环境部署单日志' which translates to 'query environment deployment order logs' - this provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it's somewhat vague about what exactly is being queried (logs for a specific job within a deployment order) and doesn't distinguish this tool from similar logging tools in the sibling list like 'get_machine_deploy_log' or 'get_pipeline_job_run_log'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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. With multiple logging-related tools in the sibling list (get_machine_deploy_log, get_pipeline_job_run_log, find_task_operation_log), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be preferred. No context about prerequisites or typical use cases is provided.

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