wps_word_get_paragraphs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the return fields (paragraph index, text, style, character start/end) and the pagination behavior (startParagraph/endParagraph, default first 50 paragraphs). This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand what to expect from the call.

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 well-structured: a concise purpose sentence, followed by bullet-pointed use cases, then return info and pagination. It is not overly verbose, and the most important info (purpose and return fields) is front-loaded. The use-case list adds practical guidance without bloating the text. Slightly longer than necessary but effective.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: what it returns (fields listed), how pagination works, and the default limit. It does not specify the exact JSON response format, but that is not critical for a simple getter. Given the tool's low complexity and existing annotations, the description is complete enough 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: both parameters (start_paragraph and end_paragraph) have clear descriptions with defaults and ranges. The description adds a bit of context about pagination and the default 50-paragraph limit, but this is largely redundant with the schema's 'default start+49' for end_paragraph. Since the schema already explains the parameters well, the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 purpose: retrieving paragraph structure information from a Word document, including text, style, and character positions. It uses a specific verb ('获取') and resource ('段落结构信息'), and the use-case list distinguishes it from siblings like wps_word_get_document_text (full text) and wps_word_find_in_document (search). The scope is 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 explicit use cases (e.g., understanding document structure, identifying fill-in positions in templates) and even suggests when to invoke it before filling a template. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives like wps_word_get_document_text, so it lacks exclusions. Still, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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