wps_wpp_get_outline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the tool reads the outline and what content is returned (titles and all text), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly mention that the operation is read-only and non-destructive, nor does it describe potential limitations (e.g., hidden slides, return format), leaving some room for ambiguity.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and then gives a concrete usage example. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly concise and front-loaded.

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 adequately covers what the tool does and when to use it. It explains the return content (titles and all text) and the intended post-generation validation context. It could be slightly more explicit about prerequisites (e.g., an open presentation) but is otherwise complete for a simple read 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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but with no parameters to document, this is acceptable and does not need to compensate for any coverage gaps.

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 the full presentation outline, including page-by-page titles and all text. The verb '读取' (read) combined with the specific resource '全篇演示文稿大纲' distinguishes it from sibling tools like wps_wpp_read_slide or wps_wpp_get_presentation_info.

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?

It provides a clear usage context: '用于生成完毕后整体校验内容是否正确' (used to verify content correctness after generation). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like reading individual slides, so it stops short of a full 5.

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