wps_word_get_comments

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 clearly conveys the read-only behavior and enumerates output fields, but it does not mention edge cases like empty comment sets or whether the result is an array. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single concise sentence in Chinese efficiently conveys the action and the fields returned. It is front-loaded with the verb 读取 and avoids unnecessary words.

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?

As a parameterless getter with no output schema, the description lists the expected return fields, which is sufficient for most use cases. It could be more explicit about the return format, but overall it covers the essential context.

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 zero parameters, so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies, and the description correctly focuses on the output rather than parameters. No further explanation is needed.

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 reads all comments in the document and specifies the returned fields (序号, 作者, 内容, 被批注的原文). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wps_word_add_comment and wps_word_delete_comment.

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 implies use when retrieving comments, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as wps_word_add_comment or wps_word_get_revisions. The sibling list provides context, but no direct guidance is given.

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