wps_word_set_alignment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates parameter meanings and does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, requires an open document, or affects the entire document by default. The description adds minimal transparency beyond the schema.

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 concise: two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the core action and parameter options without extraneous text. It earns a 4 because it is lean but not overly terse to the point of being unhelpful.

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's low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameter meanings, but lacks information about return values, prerequisites (e.g., document must be open), and side effects. For a simple setter, this is acceptable but not fully complete.

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% (both parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description adds value by explaining the enum values in Chinese ('selection=当前选中 / all=全文'), which is essentially the same as the schema's descriptions. Since coverage is high, baseline is 3; the description does not significantly extend understanding of the parameters.

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 purpose: '设置段落对齐' (set paragraph alignment). It specifies the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like wps_word_set_paragraph_format which may also affect alignment, so it loses a point for lack of differentiation.

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 provides only the meanings of the range parameter ('selection' vs 'all') but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, there is no mention of when to use this dedicated alignment tool instead of the more general wps_word_set_paragraph_format. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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