kingdee_describe_table

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it returns a table structure string but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as potential performance impacts or authentication requirements. With annotations covering safety, the description adds minimal value.

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 well-structured with a clear summary, usage scenarios, and useful common prefixes. It is concise for the amount of information conveyed. Slightly verbose due to the prefix list, but that is valuable context.

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?

The tool has one parameter, annotations cover safety, and the description provides usage guidance and additional context on table naming conventions. The return type is mentioned but without an output schema, it's slightly incomplete. Overall adequate for a simple read-only 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?

The input schema already provides a description for the single parameter 'table_name', including an example. The tool description does not add further semantic detail about the parameter. With schema description coverage at 0% (likely meaning the tool description doesn't cover parameters), the baseline of 3 applies.

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: viewing a table's complete structure including column names, types, nullability, and defaults. It explicitly distinguishes this from sibling tools like kingdee_discover_tables (which lists tables) and kingdee_get_fields (which gets fields differently), though not by name.

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 specific usage scenarios: when you know the table name, before writing SQL or data modeling, and to confirm field types. It also gives common table prefixes for context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives among siblings.

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