Word Status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden: 'report' and 'whether it answers' imply a non-mutating liveness probe, which is useful signal. It does not say whether calling it has side effects, whether it can be slow or fail when the backend is down, or that it is a safe preflight check.

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 no padding. It is front-loaded, though the awkward 'drives documents here' phrasing costs a bit of clarity.

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 tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values need not be described. However, given the crowded word_* family including word_selftest, the description should say when this diagnostic is the right one — that gap keeps it at minimum-viable.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed.

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 indicates a diagnostic read: it reports which word processor backend is in use and whether it responds. The phrasing 'drives documents here' is vague and never names the actual subject (the document engine / integration), so an agent must infer what is being inspected.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, and notably no mention of the sibling word_selftest, which sounds like an overlapping health check. The agent is left to guess which diagnostic to run first.

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