Docx extras

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It clearly states this is a read operation ('Reads') and describes the output as 'the real DocxExtras object', indicating a structured, faithful representation. It doesn't mention potential errors or permissions, but for a read-only tool the core behavior is well disclosed.

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?

Two sentences that are packed with information: the specific data types, the rationale for existence, and the return value. No filler or redundant 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides a clear account of the tool's inputs (source document) and outputs (DocxExtras object with components listed). It also supplies sibling differentiation and usage context. Minor omissions like error handling don't detract significantly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides (path vs bytesBase64+format), but it does confirm the source is a docx document. Even with no additional semantics, the schema is sufficient.

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 explicitly states the tool 'Reads a docx's own comments, footnotes, headers, footers, and numbering definitions' - a specific verb plus resource. It differentiates from 'ordinary document-reading tools' by explaining the data is not carried by ContentDocument pivot, clearly setting it apart from sibling document readers.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when needing docx extras that standard document readers miss. It explains that ContentDocument pivot cannot carry this data, implying this tool is the one to use for these elements. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the exclusions are clear.

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