doc_get_page_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It mentions that dpi is clamped (36-300), on failure returns a structured {ok:false, error}, and that images are costly. However, it does not specify whether the tool is read-only or any side effects, though the 'render' action implies no mutation.

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 concise with three sentences. It front-loads the purpose, adds usage guidance, and finishes with behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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?

The description fails to explain the success return format (presumably a PNG image). Without an output schema, the agent does not know what to expect on success. It also omits document input constraints (e.g., valid DOCX). Given the tool's complexity and no output schema, the description is incomplete.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds clamping info for 'dpi' and implies 'page' refers to a single page, but does not clarify page numbering (0- or 1-indexed) or the format of 'document' (path/ID). The description adds value but leaves gaps.

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 renders one DOCX page to a PNG for visual inspection, using a specific verb ('render') and resource ('DOCX page'). It differentiates from sibling tool 'doc_diff_versions' by noting this is an optional visual channel, while the primary signal is 'doc_render_report'.

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 explicitly advises 'use sparingly' due to image cost, contrasts with the deterministic 'doc_render_report' as the primary signal, and directs to documentation for further guidance. This clearly tells the agent when and when not to use this tool.

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