kingdee_discover_tables

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent. The description adds that it queries only system catalog (not business data) and specifies the return format (table names, types, creation time). This adds value beyond annotations.

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 very concise: a single sentence for the action, a bullet list for use cases, a line for scope, and a return type indication. No wasted words, and the most important info is front-loaded.

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 simple discovery tool, the description covers purpose, usage scenarios, scope, and return format. It also references a complementary sibling tool. Combined with annotations and schema descriptions, it provides sufficient context for an AI agent.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters (pattern and limit). The tool description implicitly references pattern via 'keywords' but does not mention limit or provide additional parameter context. Since schema coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: searching SQL Server table names containing keywords, scoped to system catalog only. It specifically distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning complementary use with 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?

Explicit use cases are provided (e.g., finding tables related to 'purchase', quick name location) and guidance to combine with kingdee_discover_columns. Scope and limitations (only system catalog, no business data) are clearly stated.

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