wps_et_close

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

The description explicitly states '不保存' (do not save), which is critical behavioral context. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden—it covers the main side effect (no save on close) but does not mention if unsaved changes trigger a confirmation dialog, if the application closes entirely, or if the action is reversible. A score of 3 is appropriate for adequate but not exhaustive disclosure.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It communicates the action, target, and critical behavioral detail (no save) in the most efficient manner possible for a zero-parameter tool.

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 that this is a simple close action with no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but missing important context: whether the action can be undone, what state the application is left in (does it close the workbook but keep the application open?), and what happens with unsaved changes besides not saving. These gaps prevent a higher score.

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 input schema has zero parameters (100% coverage), so there is nothing for the description to add beyond stating the tool takes no arguments. The baseline is 4 for 0-parameter tools, and the description confirms the no-save behavior which is the only relevant parameter-like information.

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 the action is to close the current workbook and it will not save, using the specific verb '关闭' (close) and resource '当前工作簿' (current workbook). It distinguishes from siblings like wps_et_save which saves without closing, and wps_word_close which closes a Word document.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wps_et_save (to save and keep open) or combined operations. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that a workbook must already be open), nor does it explain what happens if there are unsaved changes or if the workbook is being closed as part of a larger workflow.

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