wps_word_get_active_document

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 carried by structured data. The description adds the useful scoping detail that the tool targets the active document, but it does not disclose what happens when no document is open or what 'basic information' concretely includes. No contradiction with 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?

A single sentence with no filler; the verb and resource are front-loaded. It is economical, though it could enumerate what '基本信息' includes without significant bloat, which would improve utility.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape, but '基本信息' (basic information) does not state what fields the agent should expect. The tool is simple and annotations cover safety, yet the missing return contract and undefined behavior when no document is active leave a material gap for correct invocation.

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 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description's reference to the active document correctly implies the call is parameter-less and scoped to the current state, adding meaning about what the invocation targets.

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 verb ('获取' / get), a specific resource (the current WPS Writer active document), and a result scope ('基本信息' / basic information). It is clearly Word-specific among siblings, but it does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling wps_get_active_document, and 'basic information' is under-specified as to what fields are returned.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes wps_get_active_document (a generic version), wps_word_get_document_text, and wps_word_get_open_documents, but the description mentions none of them and gives no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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