wps_excel_get_sheet_list

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 fully covered. The description adds the behavioral detail that it returns name, index, and active-sheet status, which is useful. However, it does not disclose what happens if no workbook is open (e.g., error vs empty list), which would be valuable 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, compact sentence that front-loads the main action and then lists the returned fields. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool, the description is nearly complete. It states the resource, the returned fields, and the scope ('current workbook'). The only missing piece is the behavior when no workbook is open, but given the simplicity and the strong annotation coverage, this is a minor gap.

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 the schema provides no parameter semantics to clarify. The description compensates by specifying exactly what the returned list contains (name, index, active status), which is the only semantic information an agent needs. Baseline 4 for zero-param tools 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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving the list of all worksheets in the current workbook, including name, index, and active status. It uses a specific verb ('获取') and resource ('当前工作簿的所有工作表列表'), and the detail about what fields are returned distinguishes it from sibling tools like wps_excel_get_open_workbooks or wps_get_active_workbook.

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 implies usage context: it operates on the 'current workbook', which tells the agent it should be used when the active workbook's sheet list is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like wps_excel_get_open_workbooks or wps_get_active_workbook, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., a workbook must be open).

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