kingdee_list_forms

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns a JSON list with specific fields (form_id, name, description, recommended fields, database table name) and explains behavior for empty keyword (returns all common forms). No contradictions with 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 concise with four sentences, front-loading the purpose. Every sentence adds value: main purpose, usage instruction, examples, and return format. No wasted words.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, readOnly), the description covers all needed context: when to use, input examples, return fields, and annotations cover safety. With output schema existing, the description is fully adequate.

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 describes the 'keyword' parameter, so coverage is high. The description adds concrete examples (e.g., '员工' returns BD_Empinfo) that illustrate the mapping, enhancing semantic understanding beyond the schema's description.

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 it searches for available form types in Kingdee system, which is distinct from sibling tools that query records or other entities. The examples and instruction to use this tool when form_id is unknown differentiate it from others.

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 explicitly says to call this tool when form_id is unknown, providing a clear usage context. It also gives examples of inputs and outputs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the context is strong.

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