kingdee_query_operation_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it returns a JSON string and lists output fields, but does not disclose additional behavioral details like pagination limits or rate limits. No contradiction 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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, recommended scenarios, and a detailed list of return fields. It is concise without unnecessary text. A slight improvement could be to integrate parameter guidance, but it remains efficient.

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 complexity of the tool (many parameters, pagination, output fields), the description covers the key aspects: purpose, usage scenarios, and return value format. The input schema covers parameter details, but the description could be more complete by mentioning pagination or filter capabilities. Overall 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not repeat or elaborate on the input schema parameters. The description focuses on output fields and usage scenarios, not on how to use the input parameters. The schema itself provides detailed parameter descriptions, but the description should compensate for low coverage. It does not, so this dimension scores low.

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 verb 'query' and the resource 'operation logs' (BOS_OperateLog), and explicitly describes the contents. It distinguishes itself from sibling query tools by focusing on operation logs, not specific bill types.

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 recommended scenarios (security audit, fault diagnosis, compliance). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the list of scenarios provides clear guidance. Sibling tools are for specific entities, so this tool's general nature is implied.

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