sx_query_material_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. The word '查询' (query) implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what data is retrieved. There is no mention of scope or any caveats. This is minimal disclosure, barely above nothing.

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 short sentence, which is concise in length, but it lacks substance. It does not front-load any critical information beyond the basic action. While brevity is positive, the description under-specifies and offers minimal value relative to its length, so it does not score highly on structure.

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?

This tool has five parameters (two required), no output schema, and no descriptions in the schema. The description provides no context about how to construct a valid query, what the response looks like, or any constraints. It is grossly insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke this tool, especially given its complexity.

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 does not explain any parameters. It only mentions 'operation.materialBudget', which is not one of the schema properties. The five parameters (form_id, project_id, material_id, now_bill_id, material_type_id) are entirely unexplained, leaving an agent to guess their meaning and required formats.

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 '查询物料预算' (query material budget), which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sx_query_cost_budget and sx_query_working_hour_budget by specifying 'material', so an agent can identify the correct tool based on purpose. However, it essentially restates the tool name without adding deeper clarity about what 'material budget' encompasses or how it differs in behavior from the cost budget query.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent has no information about whether to choose this over sx_query_cost_budget or other query tools. This is completely absent.

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