wps_et_get_selection

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

The description mentions reading 'address and value', hinting at a non-destructive behavior, but with no annotations provided, it fails to disclose whether the cursor or selection state is altered, or if there are any side effects. The behavioral insight 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?

Extremely short, but the lack of English version and the non-front-loaded Chinese text with no additional structure reduces clarity. Under-specification is not conciseness.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, a complete description would clarify the format of 'address and value', return type, and whether it works on single or multi-cell selections. It is severely incomplete.

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 coverage is 100% as there are no parameters, so the description adds no burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description does not need to add parameter meaning.

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 is only provided in Chinese, meaning 'Read the address and value of the current selection.' While this indicates a read operation, it lacks an English version, which severely limits global AI readability. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like wps_et_read_range or wps_et_probe.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wps_et_read_range. The description provides no context on prerequisites, use cases, or exclusion conditions.

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