sx_list_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the query logic in detail (qParams structure, operators, field naming), which covers the mechanics of invocation. However, it does not mention that this is a read-only operation, rate limits, pagination behavior, or error scenarios. The absence of annotations raises the burden, but the detailed query syntax compensates partially, resulting in a middle score.

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 compact yet dense. It opens with a one-sentence purpose, then breaks down each parameter with concise examples in a structured format. Each line serves a purpose, and the information is front-loaded with the most critical parameters first. No redundant wording detracts from readability.

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?

The description covers the core input semantics comprehensively but omits return-value format, pagination behavior, and error handling. Since no output schema exists, the description should ideally hint at what the response contains to allow correct post-processing. It also does not clarify whether the tool is safe for concurrent use or whether `data_permission` affects visibility. For a general-purpose list tool, this leaves gaps in the agent's ability to plan follow-up actions.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains `form_id`, `fields`, `params`, `order_by`, and `data_permission`, including syntax and examples. It misses `page_size` and `page_index`, but these have clear self-descriptive names and defaults in the schema. Overall, it adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, so a score of 4 is justified.

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 '列表查询任意三效单据' (list-query any three-criteria document), specifying a general-purpose list query tool. It establishes a distinct verb+resource pattern and differentiates from specific sibling tools like sx_list_projects by the word '任意' (any), making it unambiguous which documents it covers.

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 no guidance on when to prefer this tool over the specialized list tools (e.g., sx_list_projects, sx_list_reimbursements). It does not mention exclusions, preconditions, or alternatives. The '任意' implies broad applicability but lacks explicit routing context, leaving the agent to infer usage based on name similarity alone.

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