word_extract_images

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

No annotations are available, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It fails to mention that only .docx files are supported (this is only in the schema), and it is unclear whether images are saved to the output directory or just metadata is returned. The description implies reading but lacks details on file system impact or error conditions.

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 very concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the key action. Every sentence provides essential information 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?

For a simple tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and output fields. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency, which are needed for complete context. Score reflects adequacy with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters having descriptions. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it focuses on output fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'extract' and resource 'images from Word documents'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like word_extract_tables and word_extract_text by focusing on images. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from these siblings in the description.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that for text or tables one should use the respective word_extract tools, nor does it state prerequisites or context for extraction.

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