wps_word_read_tables

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 states the tool reads all tables, but omits important traits: whether it is destructive, what happens if no tables exist, how hidden tables are handled, or the exact format of the 2D array. The read nature is implied, but not explicitly assured.

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?

A single sentence in Chinese that is concise and to the point. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or filler. Well-structured and front-loaded with the key action and result.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain edge cases (empty document, no tables), return value details beyond '2D array', or how the tool interacts with the current document state. The tool is simple but lacks completeness for reliable agent invocation.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description does not add parameter details because there are none. Baseline is 3 per the rule for high schema coverage, and the description is adequate but not exceptional.

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 reads all tables in the document and returns a 2D array. It uses a specific verb ('read') and resource ('tables'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like wps_word_read (plain text) and wps_word_get_paragraphs.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wps_word_read or wps_word_create_table. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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