wps_et_get_context

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 describes the tool as a read operation (scanning) and lists outputs, but does not disclose potential side effects, performance implications, or auth requirements. The behavior is simple enough that the lack of detail is acceptable, but not exemplary.

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?

Two sentences in Chinese, each earning its place: the first lists the output, the second gives usage guidance. No filler, front-loaded with purpose, highly efficient.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and when to use it. It could be more precise about the return format, but the list of returned items is sufficient for a context-gathering tool. Sibling tools like wps_et_probe exist, but this description defines its own niche.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no schema to add meaning to. The description compensates by explaining the output items, which is valuable for an agent. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description meets it.

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 tool's purpose: 'scan table context' and lists specific items it returns (current table, all worksheet names, UsedRange, selected cells, header row). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wps_et_probe or wps_et_get_selection by covering a broad set of context data.

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 explicitly says 'call it before modifying the table to understand the structure,' providing a clear when-to-use directive. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for a discovery tool.

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