kingdee_query_data_backup

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds context: backup data may be in system config tables or background forms, requires system admin permissions, and that no results may indicate missing fields (prompting use of kingdee_get_fields). No contradictions.

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 short and front-loaded with purpose, followed by bulleted scenarios and a caution. Every sentence adds value; no fluff.

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 output schema and well-described input schema parameters, the tool description covers purpose, usage scenarios, access prerequisites, and fallback guidance. It is complete for a query tool.

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 coverage from description is 0%: the description does not mention any of the input parameters (backup_type, status, operators, dates, filter, pagination), despite the schema having good parameter descriptions. The description relies entirely on schema for parameter meaning, requiring the agent to read schema separately.

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 queries data backup records of Kingdee Cloud Star ('查询金蝶云星空的数据备份记录'), specifies it records backup and restore operations, and is distinct from sibling query tools (e.g., kingdee_query_audit_log).

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?

Provides explicit recommended scenarios (disaster recovery verification, compliance, recovery drills) and advice on using kingdee_get_fields if results are empty. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with other query tools, but context is clear.

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