sx_list_forms

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

没有提供任何注解，因此描述承担全部行为透明性责任。描述明确了列出行为且无副作用暗示，但未明确声明这是只读操作，也未提及权限要求或数据实时性。作为纯粹列出工具，信息基本足够，但缺乏对返回行为或限制的显式说明。

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?

两段结构清晰，第一段直接说明主要功能和输出，第二段补充使用注意点和权威来源。没有冗余信息，关键内容前置，非常简洁高效。

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?

对于无参数、无输出模式、无注解的简单列表工具，描述已提供了核心用途、替代方案和权威来源。虽然未说明返回格式或分页行为，但在当前复杂度下已足够完整，没有重大缺失。

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?

工具无参数，根据规则基线为4。描述额外提及了返回的字段（formId、中文名、默认查询字段），虽未详细说明格式，但已为0参数工具提供了足够语义，故维持4分。

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?

描述明确说明了工具的功能：列出本服务已登记的三效单据标识（formId）、中文名与默认查询字段。动词'列出'清晰，资源具体，且明确区分了未登记单据仍可直接使用sx_list_query，因此与兄弟工具sx_list_query形成鲜明对照。

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?

描述直接给出了使用场景：需要获取已登记单据列表时使用本工具；未登记的单据可直接传给sx_list_query，本工具仅作为便利。这既说明了何时使用，也明确指出了替代方案，并给出了权威来源，指导性很强。

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