wps_word_get_open_documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds scope context by specifying '当前WPS Writer' and '所有已打开', but it does not describe return format, ordering, or behavior when no documents are open.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a concise list of representative use-case queries. Each element adds value and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 list tool, the description is largely complete: it names the target application, the resource, and the operation. However, because there is no output schema, the description could have briefly mentioned what the returned list contains, such as document names or paths, to fully guide the agent.

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 input schema carries no burden. The description's statement about retrieving all open documents sufficiently clarifies what the tool operates on, matching the baseline expected for a no-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('获取') and resource ('当前WPS Writer中所有已打开的文档列表'), clearly indicating it lists all open Word documents. This also distinguishes it from sibling tools like wps_word_get_active_document, which targets only the active document.

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 explicit usage scenarios with concrete user phrasings such as '看看现在打开了哪些文档' and '列出所有打开的Word文件'. It gives clear context for when to invoke this tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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