sx_query_cost_budget

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that this is a query operation via 'operation.costBudget', implying read-only behavior, but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, field restrictions, or return behavior. Given it's a query, the risk is low, but transparency is minimal.

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 concise at two sentences, with the primary purpose stated first and the parameter hint second. It avoids redundancy and is easy to scan. However, it is short to the point of being under-specified for a 6-parameter tool, so it doesn't hit the top score.

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 tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks meanings for most parameters, return format, error conditions, and any interaction with the broader workflow. An agent would struggle to understand what result to expect or how to set the parameters correctly beyond the one hint.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only explains the semantic of now_bill_id ('新建单据传 0'). The remaining five parameters (cost_id, form_id, project_id, cost_explain, cost_type_id) are left undocumented both in schema and description. The description adds a tiny amount of meaning but fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 states '查询费用预算' (query cost budget) with the operation name 'operation.costBudget', clearly identifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sx_query_material_budget and sx_query_working_hour_budget by the resource type.

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 a specific usage hint for now_bill_id when creating a new document ('新建单据传 0'), which is an actionable guideline. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus its sibling query budget tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Guidance is partially present but not comprehensive.

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