wps_get_active_document

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. However, the description adds essentially no behavioral context beyond 'get info': no mention of what happens when no document is open, whether it returns a summary or full document, or any edge-case behavior. It does not contradict annotations but contributes little beyond them.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words; the core operation is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a 0-parameter read-only tool, though it could carry slightly more substantive detail without losing conciseness.

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 simple 0-param read-only tool with strong annotations, it is mostly complete. However, '信息' (information) is vague, and with no output schema the agent cannot anticipate what fields to expect. The unresolved near-duplicate sibling wps_word_get_active_document also leaves a real gap in completeness.

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 schema has 0 parameters and 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameters to document, and the description correctly implies the tool needs no arguments. Nothing is missing in this dimension.

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 '获取当前打开的WPS文字文档信息' (Get info about the currently open WPS Word document) has a clear verb (获取/get) + specific resource (current open WPS Word document) + purpose (information). It distinguishes itself from workbook and presentation siblings via '文字' (Word), but there's a confusing near-duplicate sibling wps_word_get_active_document that the description doesn't disambiguate.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites are stated. The description doesn't help an agent decide between this tool and the near-duplicate wps_word_get_active_document or the other active_* siblings; it relies entirely on external sibling context.

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