sx_get_form_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says '查询' (query), which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it performs no side effects, or mention authentication, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. Given the absence of annotations, this is a notable gap.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and use case, with zero wasted words. It is appropriately concise and structured, though the brevity leaves gaps in other dimensions.

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 absence of annotations, lack of output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description leaves a lot unsaid. The agent does not know what form_id_ex and entry_marks do, what the return structure looks like, or whether this operation has any side effects. The description is only 'sufficient' for the most basic understanding of the tool's purpose, but not for confident invocation.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter explanations. However, it only mentions 'field identifiers' without connecting that to any of the three parameters (form_id, form_id_ex, entry_marks). form_id might be inferred from its name, but form_id_ex and entry_marks are completely unexplained. The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics.

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 (查询/query) and resource (单据字段配置/document field configuration), and adds a concrete use case: '想知道某单据有哪些字段标识时用这个' (use this when you want to know which field identifiers a document has). This distinguishes it from data-retrieval siblings like sx_get_bill or sx_get_by_id, which are about fetching actual data rather than configuration.

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 gives a trigger condition ('when you want to know field identifiers'), which is a clear usage signal. However, it does not state when not to use it, nor mention any alternative tools. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, so it earns a middle score.

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