wps_wpp_probe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool probes API support, which suggests a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm no side effects, mention required permissions, describe the return format, or disclose any safety considerations. The description is insufficient for a diagnostic tool with no annotations.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and context. Every word contributes to meaning, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter diagnostic tool.

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 no output schema, so the description should explain what the return value represents. It only mentions detecting API support but does not describe the format of results (e.g., list of supported features, boolean flags, etc.). For a diagnostic tool, this is a significant omission. Additionally, no annotations are provided to fill in behavioral context.

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, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds no parameter information because there are none. Baseline is 3, and the description does not need to compensate for missing param details. It adequately describes the tool's action without needing to elaborate on 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 uses the specific verb '探测' (probe/detect) and clearly identifies the resource: API support for slide size, layout, and template. This distinguishes it from siblings like wps_wpp_get_presentation_info (which retrieves presentation info) and wps_word_probe (for Word).

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 includes '诊断用' (diagnostic use), implying the tool is for checking API support rather than normal operations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage guidance is implied but not explicit.

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