wps_et_sort_range

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the 'order' parameter with allowed values and implies sorting by a key column. However, it does not disclose whether the sorting is stable, modifies the original data or creates a copy, or what happens if there are merged cells or empty cells. A score of 3 is appropriate because it covers the basic behavior but lacks deeper transparency.

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 concise with two sentences: the first states the core function, and the second clarifies the 'order' parameter values. It is front-loaded with the main action. It could be slightly improved by mentioning the default order (already in schema) but is still 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?

The tool has 3 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema. The description covers the basic sorting action and the 'order' parameter but lacks context on error cases, performance considerations, or how it interacts with other spreadsheet features (like filters or tables). A score of 3 indicates it is adequate but has room for improvement.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Per guidelines, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate this.

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 '按某列对区域排序' (sort a range by a column), which is a specific verb-resource combination. It also mentions the 'order' parameter with allowed values 'asc/desc', which helps distinguish it from other spreadsheet tools like wps_et_auto_filter or wps_et_write_range that have different purposes.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it is clear what the tool does, there is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether the range must contain data, if headers are required), or when it would be better to use other siblings like wps_et_auto_filter or wps_et_format_range.

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