wps_et_read_range

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does so by explaining the return format (2D array), indexing (0-based row/column), and the special case of no cell parameter returning an {address, value} structure. It also clarifies that single cells return a nested array. The only missing detail is whether the tool is read-only or destructive, but the name 'read_range' and the description strongly imply a read operation, mitigating this gap.

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 extremely concise, consisting of just three sentences covering all key points: purpose, return format, single vs range behavior, and optional parameter behavior. No extraneous information. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded with the most important information first.

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?

For a tool with 1 optional parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is nearly complete. It covers the input, all output cases, and the expected indexing. It could optionally mention that the returned address for selection reading is a string like 'A1:B3', but this is implicit from the context. The sibling tools (e.g., wps_et_write_range) are clearly differentiated.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the schema already describing the cell parameter as '单元格地址。单格 A1 或区域 A1:B3，统一返回二维数组 value[r][c]'. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining the return format in detail, including 0-based indexing, the difference between single cell and range output, and the behavior when no cell is provided. This richness merits a score above baseline 3.

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 '读取单元格值' (read cell value) and specifies the return format: a 2D array where value[r][c] directly maps to row and column, with the first cell at value[0][0]. It distinguishes between single cell and range inputs, and explains the behavior when no cell parameter is provided. This effectively differentiates it from siblings like wps_et_write_range or wps_et_set_formula.

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 clear guidance on how to use the tool: pass a cell address (single like 'A1' or range like 'A1:B3') or omit to read the current selection. It explains the return structure for each case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., wps_et_write_range is for writing, not reading), but the sibling tools are sufficiently distinct in purpose.

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