wps_word_probe

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 describes the tool as a diagnostic probe, suggesting it is non-destructive and read-only. However, it does not disclose what the output looks like, whether it requires an active document, or any side effects. The behavioral description is minimal and lacks details beyond the core purpose.

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 tool's purpose and intent. It is front-loaded with the action ('探测') and target. While concise, it could benefit from a brief mention of return value or typical usage context without becoming verbose. Overall, it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what the tool does (probe support for revision/comment APIs) but does not provide any details about the expected output or how to interpret the results. For a diagnostic tool, this is a notable gap. The sibling tools indicate a complex environment, so more context would be helpful.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly omits any parameter information. With no parameters, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate, as no additional elaboration is required.

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 uses a specific verb ('探测' - detect/probe) and a clear resource ('修订模式/批注相关 API 支持度' - revision mode/comment API support). It explicitly states it is for diagnostic purposes, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform actions (e.g., wps_word_toggle_track_changes, wps_word_add_comment). The purpose is immediately clear.

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 '诊断用' (for diagnostic use), which implies the tool should be used to check API support before performing revision or comment operations. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The sibling tools are action-oriented, so the intention is inferred, but not explicitly stated.

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