Word Page Text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails: it doesn't say what happens if the document isn't open, whether page numbering is 1-based, what an out-of-range page returns, or whether tables/images/text-boxes are included. The phrase "text that the word processor placed" hints at a text layer but never clarifies it.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler, with the action and subject front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity is achieved by omitting content rather than by tight editing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is legitimately omitted. However, for a read tool with no annotations and fully undocumented parameters, the description should still cover document-state requirements, page indexing, and failure behavior; none of that is present.

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 description coverage is 0% for two parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. "Page" is only implied by "given page" with no numbering convention, and the optional "path" parameter (default null, presumably the active document) is never mentioned at all.

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?

"Read the text ... on a given page" states a specific verb (read) and resource (page text), which separates it from siblings like word_page_count and word_outline. It does not explicitly contrast with word_headings or word_export_pdf, so it stops short of full sibling 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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and never names an alternative for getting page-level content (word_headings, word_outline, word_export_pdf). It also omits prerequisites, such as whether a document must first be opened via word_open.

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