kingdee_discover_metadata_candidates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds context about being a helper tool for Kingdee/K3, providing mapping examples and return type. No contradictions (description states discovery, not mutation). Could disclose case sensitivity or limitation, but overall good.

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 well-structured with purpose, examples, scenarios, and return type. Front-loaded with main action. Could be slightly shorter by merging redundant parts, but clarity benefits from examples.

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 complexity of form_id-to-table mapping, the description is thorough: explains mapping logic, provides common examples, and lists use cases. Output schema exists, so return values need no further explanation. No significant gaps.

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 descriptions already cover both parameters. Description adds value by providing valid form_id examples and clarifying default behavior (empty returns all). Reinforces schema info. For limit, no extra detail, but schema is sufficient.

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's purpose: discovering database tables corresponding to a form_id or prefix. It provides specific examples and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on form_id-to-table mapping, unlike other discovery tools like kingdee_discover_tables or kingdee_discover_columns.

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?

Explicitly lists applicable scenarios (knowing which table corresponds to a form_id, exploring related tables, understanding mapping). Does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but given the context and sibling names, it's clear that this tool is for mapping discovery. A mention of siblings would improve it.

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