wps_word_probe_sections

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 discloses the tool's behavior: it probes ('探测') specific sectioning and page number capabilities. The term '探测' implies a read-only investigation, and the listed items (section count, footer link status, restart numbering capability) give clear behavioral expectations. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive or require any permissions.

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 two sentences, both front-loaded with essential information. The first sentence states the core function and what it checks, the second provides a concrete usage scenario. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 provides a reasonable set of expectations: it checks section count, footer link status, and restart numbering capability. It also explains why an agent would use it (thesis page numbering). However, it does not describe the return format or structure, which would be helpful for a more complete understanding.

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% (vacuously). Per guidelines, 0 parameters sets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information because there are none to describe, but it also does not introduce any confusion. The score reflects the baseline with no deduction.

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's function: '探测当前文档分节与页码 API 的支持度' (detect support of sectioning and page number API). It specifies the exact items checked (number of sections, footer link status, PageNumbers restart numbering capability) and provides a concrete use case for thesis page numbering. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wps_word_probe and wps_word_add_section_break.

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 gives a specific scenario: '用于判断论文正文页码从1重新开始、封面无页码的分节方案是否可行' (used to determine if the sectioning scheme for thesis body page numbers restart from 1, cover no page numbers is feasible). This provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like wps_word_probe, which slightly reduces guidance.

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