wps_word_get_document_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It correctly identifies the tool as a read-only information retrieval operation. However, it does not mention whether the document must be open, error conditions, or performance characteristics. No contradiction since annotations are absent.

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 sentence in Chinese clearly states the tool's purpose and output. Every word is informative: '获取当前活动 Word 文档信息：文件名、路径、段落/字数/字符数、表格数。' No waste or repetition.

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 simple zero-parameter info retrieval tool, the description is largely complete in listing output fields. However, it does not mention what happens if no document is open, or if the document has no table count. With no output schema, the description could be slightly more explicit about format or edge cases.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds value by listing exactly what information is returned (file name, path, paragraph/word/character counts, table count), which the empty schema cannot convey. This fills the gap for parameter meaning.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves current active Word document info, listing specific attributes: file name, path, paragraph/word/character counts, and table count. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'wps_word_get_paragraphs' or 'wps_word_read'.

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 the tool is for getting document metadata when you need an overview, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives like 'wps_word_read' or 'wps_word_get_outline'. No exclusions or timing advice.

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