wps_word_get_revisions

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 explicitly states the tool is read-only ('只读，不修改文档'), which is a key behavioral trait. It also discloses the prerequisite (track changes must be enabled). It does not mention potential edge cases (e.g., empty result if no revisions) or return format, but the core behavioral characteristic is transparently communicated.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose, prerequisite, and return fields. It is front-loaded with the main action and uses a colon to separate the action from the details. Every part is essential; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the purpose, the fields returned, the prerequisite, and the read-only nature. It does not explicitly state the return format (e.g., array of objects) or behavior when there are no revisions, but the listed fields imply the structure. This is sufficient for a simple retrieval tool.

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, and schema coverage is 100%. According to guidelines, this earns a baseline of 4. The description does not add parameter-specific details because there are none, but it provides context about the prerequisite (track changes mode) which is relevant to understanding the tool's operation even though it is not a parameter.

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 verb ('读取' - read) and resource ('修订记录' - revision records), lists the specific fields returned (序号、类型、作者、涉及文字), and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it is read-only and requires track changes to be enabled first. This aligns with the tool's name and differentiates it from tools like `wps_word_resolve_revisions` which modifies revisions.

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 includes a critical prerequisite: '需先开启修订模式才会产生修订' (need to enable track changes mode first). This tells the agent when to use the tool (after enabling track changes) and implicitly when not to (if track changes is off). It also states the tool is read-only, implying it is safe to call without side effects. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like `wps_word_get_comments` or `wps_word_resolve_revisions`.

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