wps_word_show_task_pane

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool opens a sidebar using the CreateTaskPane API but does not specify whether it is read-only, destructive, or what happens if the pane is already open. The phrase '可直接对话操作当前文档' implies modification via the pane, but the tool invocation itself may have no side effects on document content. This ambiguity leaves the agent without clear safety or effect information.

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 concise Chinese sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded (打开/唤起 Draftly 侧边栏), followed by technical and functional details. Every sentence earns its place.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable high-level overview. However, it fails to mention what the agent can expect as a return value (likely void), and it does not clarify prerequisites (e.g., if a document must be open). These gaps reduce completeness for a simple action tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so dimension baselines at 4. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool does (opens a sidebar) and its purpose (chat-based editing), which is relevant context beyond the empty schema. No parameter documentation is needed, and the baseline is appropriately applied.

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 opens/evokes the Draftly sidebar, a structured chat panel docked on the right side of the WPS main window. It specifies the verb (打开/唤起), resource (Draftly 侧边栏), and technical basis (Claude Agent SDK). This is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on document editing, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the chat panel can operate the current document, but does not compare it to direct editing tools or explain scenarios where this conversational approach is preferred. Sibling tools like wps_word_read, wps_word_insert_text, etc., are all available without any usage trade-offs being indicated.

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