kingdee_query_approval_flow

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 value by stating the return format (JSON list of approval flows) and warning that data may be stored across multiple forms, which indicates potential complexity in data retrieval.

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 moderately concise, with a clear opening statement followed by bullet points and a note. It front-loads the core purpose and efficiently conveys usage guidance. Some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'approval' in multiple bullet points), but overall it remains actionable without excessive verbosity.

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 presence of a detailed input schema and an output schema (as per context signals), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, usage scenarios, a caution about data source, and return format. It does not detail error handling or exhaustive examples, but it is adequate for understanding what the tool does and when to use it.

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 comprehensive descriptions for all parameters (e.g., form_id, bill_id, status, dates, pagination). The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. With full schema coverage, baseline score 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 specifies the tool's function: querying approval flow records in Kingdee Cloud Star. It outlines the complete approval trajectory including nodes, personnel, times, results, and opinions. The recommended scenarios (approval tracing, process optimization, compliance checks) further clarify the purpose and distinguish it from sibling query tools.

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 explicit usage scenarios (approval tracing, process optimization, compliance checks) and includes a note advising to use kingdee_get_fields if no results, offering a fallback. While it lacks direct 'when not to use' instructions, the context and sibling tool names (e.g., kingdee_query_bills) imply the tool is specifically for approval flows.

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