wps_wpp_open

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fully discloses critical behavioral traits: the blocking native dialog if the file is already open, the inability of the object model to intercept it, the sandbox restrictions on allowed paths, and the explicit error throwing for unauthorized paths. This is highly transparent.

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 moderately long but every sentence adds critical information. The key purpose is front-loaded, followed by warnings and sandbox limitations. A minor improvement could be splitting into two paragraphs for readability, but overall it is well-structured and informative.

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?

The tool has 1 simple parameter and no output schema. The description covers all behavioral aspects: opening behavior, blocking scenarios, sandbox constraints, and error handling. Given the complexity of the WPS environment, the description is complete and leaves no obvious gaps for the agent.

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% (only one parameter 'path' with description '文件绝对路径'). The description does not add further detail about the path parameter beyond what the schema already provides, but since schema coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with '打开本地或云同步的演示文稿' which is a specific verb ('打开' = open) and resource ('演示文稿' = presentation). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wps_wpp_close or wps_wpp_get_presentation_info by stating directly what it does.

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 explicitly warns against using this tool when the file is already open in WPS, describing the blocking dialog issue. It also provides guidance on sandbox restrictions, advising to use files under ~/Downloads or pre-open with shell if a path fails. This is comprehensive when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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