word_add_table

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as whether the table is appended, whether existing content is affected, or any side effects. It fails to disclose any traits not already captured by 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?

The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. A single phrase without elaboration does not adequately serve the agent. It is concise but not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 and minimal description, the tool's behavior is under-specified. It does not explain what happens when a table is added (e.g., position, effect on existing content, return value). The description plus annotations provide only a bare outline, leaving the agent without sufficient context for correct invocation and expectation.

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%, with each parameter having its own description (e.g., docId '文档ID', headers '表头', rows '数据行', style '表格样式'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it hits the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 '添加表格' (Add table) is essentially a direct restatement of the tool name word_add_table. It identifies the resource (table) but provides no specific detail about the operation, such as adding a table with headers and rows. It does not distinguish from sibling tools beyond the name itself.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any preconditions, document requirements, or suggest when adding a table is appropriate. No exclusions or alternative tools are referenced.

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