wps_word_export_pdf

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently reveals that WPS may return 'success' while the file is never actually created on unauthorized paths, that this failure is invisible at the object model layer, and that the tool does not guarantee path correctness. This is critical operational context that goes far beyond basic parameter documentation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence carries weight: default path, sandbox warning, failure mode, recommendation, verification note. However, it could be slightly restructured for clarity—the '重要' paragraph runs long and mixes distinct concerns (permissions, silent failure, verification). Minor structural polish would elevate it to 5.

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 simple input schema (1 optional param) and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior, failure modes, and best practices. The silent-failure warning is essential for safe agent usage. No gaps remain for the agent to infer or discover by trial and error.

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 schema has 100% coverage (1 param described), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the default behavior when path is omitted, and by warning about authorization constraints on the path parameter. A small gap: it doesn't confirm whether directory creation is attempted or expected.

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 opens with a clear action verb and resource: '把当前文档导出为 PDF'. It immediately distinguishes itself by specifying the default behavior when no path is given (same directory, same name, .pdf extension). Among siblings like wps_wpp_export_pdf, this is uniquely the Word document PDF export tool.

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 on where to export and what pitfalls to avoid. It warns that WPS is a sandbox app, lists authorized directories (~/Downloads, original document directory), explains that writing to unauthorized paths leads to silent failure, and gives a concrete recommendation: '强烈建议导出到 ~/Downloads'. It also instructs the agent to verify file existence after export.

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