wps_word_find_in_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: no replacement is performed, and the returned information includes match text, character offsets, paragraph index, and 50-character context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by useful usage scenarios and return-value details. It is well-structured with no filler and every sentence contributes to correct tool selection and invocation.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the return contents. The annotations cover safety and idempotency, the schema documents all parameters, and the description covers purpose, usage, and differentiating behavior. The agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The tool description adds usage context but no additional parameter-level semantics, so the 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 states a specific action ('在Word文档中查找文本') and a concrete result ('返回位置信息'), and explicitly distinguishes the tool from find_replace by noting it does not replace. This makes selection among the sibling word tools unambiguous.

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 concrete user-intent examples, positions the tool as a prerequisite before smart_fill_field, and explicitly contrasts it with find_replace. This is clear 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.