wps_check_connection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description does not explain what 'connection status' means or what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean, a status object, or details). With no output schema, the description should clarify the result format, but it only restates the purpose. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the 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 in Chinese that directly states the tool's function. It is front-loaded with the purpose, contains no filler, and is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters. Every word 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?

For a tool with no parameters and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks information about the return value or any error states, which an agent would need to interpret the result. Additionally, it does not differentiate from potentially similar siblings like wps_common_ping or wps_common_wire_check, which could lead to incorrect tool selection. Given the simplicity, a 3 reflects these gaps.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to document. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because none exist. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not create any ambiguity about inputs. It fully covers the input side.

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 a specific verb ('检查' / check) and resource ('WPS Office连接状态' / WPS Office connection status). It distinguishes the tool from document-specific siblings (e.g., wps_get_active_document) but does not explicitly differentiate it from other connectivity-check siblings like wps_common_ping or wps_common_wire_check, which might overlap in purpose.

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 does not mention wps_common_ping or wps_common_wire_check as potential alternatives, nor any preconditions or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The only hint is the name, but the description itself offers no usage context.

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