wps_word_read

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 max_chars defense against explosions, which is positive. However, it does not mention if the tool is read-only, whether it modifies document state, or if it requires the document to be open. Without annotations, this is minimal but adequate.

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 extremely concise at 30 characters, with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose and then addresses the parameter. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from param note), but overall it earns its brevity.

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 low complexity (1 param, no enums, no output schema), the description is mostly complete for the core function. However, it lacks details on return format (plain text?), behavior for non-text content (images), or any prerequisites (document must be active). The description does not need to be exhaustive, but there are small gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description echoes the parameter purpose ('限制返回长度防爆') but does not add new meaning beyond the schema's own description ('最多返回字符数'). It complements effectively but without extra enrichment.

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 clear verb ('读取') and specific resource ('当前活动 Word 文档全文'), indicating reading full content. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wps_word_read_tables (focused on tables) and general probe tools, though it could explicitly state it returns the entire document text.

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 usage for retrieving full document content, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives like wps_word_read_tables (for tables) or wps_word_get_selection (for selection). No exclusions or context about document size or performance impact are mentioned.

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