kingdee_query_asset_scrape

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

The description discloses that the tool is read-only and query-based, aligning with annotations (readOnlyHint=true). It adds domain-specific context about asset scrap types and provides practical filter and field examples, which goes beyond the annotation's binary flags.

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 and well-structured: a clear opening sentence, a brief domain explanation, and bullet-like examples. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information 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?

Given the output schema exists, the description need not cover return values. It includes domain-specific knowledge and query examples. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings, which slightly reduces completeness.

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 includes descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete examples of filter_string values and recommended field_keys, which aids the agent in constructing effective queries.

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 queries asset scrap orders ('查询资产报废单') with the specific form ID FA_Scrape, and explains the domain context (disposal of fixed assets, including normal and early scrapping). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from other asset-related 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 common filter_string examples and recommended field_keys, which gives usage context for query construction. However, it does not explicitly differentiate when to use this tool versus sibling tools like kingdee_query_fixed_asset or kingdee_query_asset_card.

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