docx-to-markdown

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the conversion action but omits critical details: whether it's read-only or destructive (e.g., modifies the original file), error handling (e.g., invalid files), performance traits (e.g., speed), or output specifics (e.g., markdown format details). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 concise and front-loaded with a single, clear sentence: 'Convert a DOCX file to markdown'. There is zero waste, making it efficient for quick understanding without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (a file conversion operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects (e.g., safety, errors), usage context, or output details, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool confidently beyond the basic action.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the single parameter ('filepath'), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't compensate with additional context like file format requirements or path examples.

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's purpose: 'Convert a DOCX file to markdown' specifies the verb (convert) and resource (DOCX file) with the target format (markdown). However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'pptx-to-markdown' or 'pdf-to-markdown' beyond the input file type, missing explicit differentiation.

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. The description lacks context such as prerequisites (e.g., file must exist), exclusions (e.g., not for other formats), or comparisons to siblings like 'pdf-to-markdown', leaving the agent to infer usage based on file type alone.

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