wps_et_probe

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 fails to mention what the tool actually does internally (e.g., whether it mutates anything, requires a workbook to be open, or what side effects it might have). The description mentions '输出各种取值方式的结果' but does not clarify whether this is a read-only operation or could have side effects.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and a simple purpose. It loses one point because it is in Chinese and the translation is not provided, which may reduce clarity for some agents.

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 there are no parameters and no output schema, the description must explain what the tool returns and when to use it. It only says it outputs various value retrieval results, but does not specify what those results are, how to interpret them, or any prerequisites. As a development diagnostic tool, more detail about expected output format or usage scenarios would be needed.

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 no parameters, so the schema provides no information. The description adds the purpose of outputting multiple value retrieval results, which is meaningful context. With zero parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate because the description compensates for the absence of parameter information by clarifying the tool's scope.

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 states it diagnoses the WPS Spreadsheet Range value API and outputs results of various value-obtaining methods. The verb 'diagnose' is somewhat vague but understandable for a probe tool. It is not clearly distinguished from sibling tools like 'wps_et_probe' vs 'wps_et_read_range' or 'wps_et_get_selection'.

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 minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It is labeled '开发用' (for development), which implies it is for debugging, but it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, nor does it specify scenarios where this probe is preferable over reading a range normally.

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