xpath_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the action and pre-bound namespaces but does not mention read-only nature, performance characteristics, or error handling. The examples help but leave gaps.

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 three sentences plus examples, all front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value, and examples are directly useful. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers main use and provides examples. It does not explain the output despite an output schema existing, and lacks mention of read-only behavior. Still adequate for a straightforward query tool.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds the 'part' default and explains 'xpath' with examples. However, it does not enumerate valid parts or describe the xpath parameter's syntax beyond examples, missing full parameter documentation.

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 'Run XPath against any DOCX part' with pre-bound namespaces and three concrete examples, making the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like read_part or search_text.

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 indicates when to use (for XPath queries on DOCX parts) and provides namespace info. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but sibling context implies usage boundaries.

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