wps_et_open

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses critical behaviors: the blocking dialog when file is already open, the sandbox path restrictions, and that errors are explicit (no false success). This level of detail for a simple open operation is exceptional.

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 efficiently structured: the first sentence states the primary purpose, followed by two separate warning paragraphs. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no redundant or unnecessary text. It is concise yet comprehensive.

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?

The description covers purpose, critical behavioral caveats, and error behavior. It does not explicitly describe the return value or confirm success, but for an open tool with no output schema this is a minor gap. Given the complexity (single param, no nested objects), the description is nearly complete.

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 single parameter 'path' has schema coverage at 100% with description '文件绝对路径'. The tool description adds context about path authorization (sandbox restrictions) but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens local or cloud-synced spreadsheet files, using a specific verb (打开) and resource (表格文件). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wps_word_open and wps_wpp_open which target different document types.

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 explicit guidance: warns against opening files already open in WPS (causes blocking dialog) and explains sandbox restrictions with actionable advice. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the purpose implies when to use this tool versus sibling open tools.

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