query_metadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates this is a read-only metadata query ('查询元数据') and explains what information it retrieves (field names, types). It does not go into permissions or side effects, but the query nature is evident and the purpose is well specified.

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 and well-structured: a clear first sentence stating the purpose, a second sentence giving the use case, and a brief Args section. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the key information.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations) and the existence of an output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains what the tool does, why it is useful, and defines the parameter. It lacks mention of limitations or alternatives, but these are not critical for this straightforward metadata query.

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 has one required parameter 'form_id' with no description, but the tool description compensates by explaining that it is the form ID and providing examples such as SAL_SaleOrder, PUR_PurchaseOrder, BD_MATERIAL. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 that the tool queries metadata (field structure information) for Kingdee Cloud Star forms. It specifies the verb '查询' (query) and the resource '元数据' (metadata), distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate on bill data directly.

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 the context of use: to obtain field information for constructing query and save parameters. This makes the tool's use case clear, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It is more than implied usage, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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