vela_get_workflow_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that the tool corresponds to a GET API call and that step is required but must be fetched from record details. It does not disclose additional behavior like rate limits, error handling, or invocation prerequisites beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Description is two sentences: first states purpose and a key prerequisite, second gives API endpoint. No filler, every word adds value. Efficient and focused.

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?

Tool has output schema, so return value documentation is not needed. However, description only addresses step, ignoring that other required parameters (app_name, workflow_name, record) are necessary for invocation. Agent must infer them from parameter descriptions. Some completeness is missing.

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 only reiterates the step parameter's requirement and source, which is already stated in the schema description. It fails to mention other required parameters (app_name, workflow_name, record). Given schema description coverage is 0% (according to context), the description should compensate but does not, leaving key parameters undocumented.

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?

Description clearly states the tool views logs of a specific step in a workflow execution record. It specifies the resource (workflow step logs) and action (view), and distinguishes from sibling tools like vela_list_workflow_records (which lists records) and vela_get_application (app info). The verb '查看' and resource are unambiguous.

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?

Description notes that step is required and can be obtained from record details, providing a prerequisite hint. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention that other required parameters (app_name, workflow_name, record) must be available. Guidance is limited.

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