fgui_get_active_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly uses '读取' (read), indicating a non-destructive operation, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose what happens if no document is active, whether any side effects occur, or error behavior. This is adequate for a simple getter but not rich.

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 a single, concise sentence in Chinese that is front-loaded with the verb '读取' and states exactly what is read. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary detail.

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 getter with no parameters and an output schema present, the description fully covers the tool's purpose. The output schema presumably details the return structure, so the description need not repeat it. The description is sufficient for an AI agent to understand what this tool does.

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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the schema correctly shows no properties. The description adds no parameter-related confusion.

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 '读取当前活动文档、修改状态和选择数量' clearly states the tool reads the current active document, its modification status, and selection count. This is a specific verb (read) with a clear resource, and it distinguishes from siblings like fgui_get_tree (gets tree structure) and fgui_get_history (gets history).

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 implies usage when you need the current document's state, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., an open document) or when not to use it, so guidance is only implicit.

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