DocX — Lister les modèles

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

With no annotations, the description correctly notes the client-side filtering behavior and scoping to the API key. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the list is paginated. This is adequate for a simple listing tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 has no output schema, and the description does not explain what the return value looks like (e.g., list of template names, metadata). For a listing tool, this missing information is a significant gap.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single 'name' parameter. The description adds value by explaining that the filter is applied client-side and uses a 'contains' logic, which is beyond the schema's description.

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 lists Word templates for the API key, with an optional client-side name filter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like docx_delete_template or docx_upload_template.

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 explains the optional filter and its client-side application, but lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., docx_list_template_versions or docx_get_usage_stats). No explicit when-not or alternatives are given.

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