wps_word_get_selection

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'reads selected text' without clarifying what happens if nothing is selected, whether formatting is preserved, or if the operation is read-only (though inferred from the name). Key behavioral gaps remain.

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 is front-loaded and efficient. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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?

Despite having no parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It lacks details about the return value format, error cases (e.g., no selection), and does not help the agent understand what to expect from the output. Given the complexity of the sibling tool set, more context is needed for correct usage.

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 description coverage is 100% (trivially). Since there are no parameters to describe, the baseline is 4. The description does not add any parameter semantics, but none are 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 '读取当前选中的文字' (Read the currently selected text) clearly states the verb (read) and the resource (currently selected text), distinguishing it from siblings like wps_word_read which reads the entire document, and wps_word_get_paragraphs which reads paragraph structure.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring a selection to exist, or when to prefer wps_word_read or wps_word_get_paragraphs instead.

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