Office Word MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation2/5
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, especially for footnotes (e.g., add_footnote_to_document, add_footnote_enhanced, add_footnote_robust, add_footnote_before_text, add_footnote_after_text) and table formatting (e.g., set_table_cell_alignment vs. set_table_alignment_all, merge_table_cells vs. merge_table_cells_horizontal/vertical). Descriptions help somewhat, but the boundaries are unclear, leading to potential misselection.
Naming Consistency3/5
The naming follows a mostly snake_case pattern, but conventions are mixed with inconsistent verb styles (e.g., 'add' vs. 'insert' vs. 'apply' vs. 'set' for similar operations) and some tools have overly verbose names (e.g., replace_block_between_manual_anchors). While readable, it lacks a predictable pattern across all tools.
Tool Count2/5
With 54 tools, the count is excessive for a Word document server, making it heavy and overwhelming. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple footnote addition/deletion tools, redundant table formatting functions), indicating poor scoping and bloat.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers a wide range of Word document operations, including creation, formatting, tables, footnotes, comments, and conversion to PDF. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct tool for adding comments or managing sections), but core workflows are well-covered, allowing agents to work around most limitations.
Average 2.8/5 across 54 of 54 tools scored. Lowest: 2.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
This repository is archived. Archived repositories automatically receive an F maintenance tier.
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as whether this is a mutation (likely), what permissions are needed, if changes are reversible, or how errors are handled. For a tool with 11 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its content, though the brevity contributes to underspecification rather than conciseness alone.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameter usage, or expected outcomes, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds no meaning beyond the tool name—it doesn't explain what parameters like 'filename', 'table_index', or formatting options do, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Format text within a specific table cell' clearly states the action (format) and target (text in a table cell), but it's vague about what formatting options are available. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'format_text' or 'format_table', leaving ambiguity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'format_text' or 'format_table'. The description implies a specific context (table cells), but it doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'robust validation', 'Word compliance', and 'comprehensive error handling', which hints at behavioral traits like validation steps and error management. However, it lacks details on what validation entails, what errors are handled, whether it modifies documents destructively, or any rate limits or permissions needed, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded, with two sentences that convey key points efficiently. There's no wasted text, but it could be more structured by explicitly stating the tool's action and context upfront. It's appropriately sized for the information provided, though under-specified in content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, and expected outcomes, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool correctly. The mention of 'production-ready' and error handling adds some context but doesn't fill the gaps in parameter understanding or operational guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 6 parameters are documented in the schema. The description provides no information about parameters like 'filename', 'search_text', 'paragraph_index', etc., failing to compensate for the lack of schema details. This leaves the agent with no semantic understanding of what each parameter does or how to use them effectively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool adds footnotes with validation and Word compliance, which gives a general purpose, but it's vague about the specific action and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'add_footnote_enhanced' or 'add_footnote_to_document'. It mentions 'production-ready' and 'comprehensive error handling' but lacks specificity about what makes it robust compared to alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions it's 'production-ready' and has 'comprehensive error handling', which implies usage in critical scenarios, but it doesn't state when to choose this over siblings like 'add_footnote_enhanced' or 'add_footnote_to_document', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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 only states what the tool does ('Format a specific range of text') without mentioning whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are needed, whether changes are reversible, or what happens to existing formatting. For a mutation tool with 10 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how formatting changes are applied, what errors might occur, or provide any context about the 10 parameters. For a text formatting tool with this level of complexity, the description should provide much more guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 10 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'filename', 'paragraph_index', formatting options like 'bold' or 'color', or other parameters mean or how they should be used. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Format') and target ('a specific range of text within a paragraph'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from other formatting-related siblings like 'format_table' or 'format_table_cell_text', which slightly reduces its effectiveness for sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'format_table', 'add_heading', 'create_custom_style'), there's no indication of appropriate contexts, exclusions, or prerequisites for using this text formatting tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the function 'ensures footnotes display correctly as superscript,' which adds some behavioral context about formatting. However, it lacks critical details such as whether this modifies the original file, what permissions are needed, error handling, or how it interacts with existing footnotes. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's function and a formatting assurance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the second sentence ('This enhanced function ensures...') is somewhat vague and could be more precise, slightly reducing efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, usage distinctions from siblings, and detailed behavioral context. The mention of superscript formatting is helpful but insufficient for a tool that modifies documents and has multiple similar alternatives.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description does not explain any of the four parameters (filename, search_text, footnote_text, output_filename), such as what they represent, expected formats, or how 'output_filename' relates to the operation. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters largely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Add a footnote after specific text with proper superscript formatting.' It specifies the verb ('Add'), resource ('footnote'), and location ('after specific text'), and mentions formatting. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'add_footnote_before_text' or other footnote-related tools, which would be needed for a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools like 'add_footnote_before_text', 'add_footnote_enhanced', and 'add_footnote_to_document', there is no indication of when this specific 'after text' version is appropriate or what differentiates it from other footnote-adding tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'proper superscript formatting' and 'ensures footnotes display correctly,' which hints at formatting behavior, but lacks critical details: whether this modifies files in-place, requires specific permissions, handles errors, or affects document structure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the second sentence ('This enhanced function ensures...') is somewhat redundant and doesn't add substantial value, slightly reducing efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (modifying documents with footnotes), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It misses parameter explanations, behavioral details, and differentiation from alternatives, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't explain any of the 4 parameters (filename, search_text, footnote_text, output_filename). For example, it doesn't clarify what 'search_text' targets or how 'output_filename' works. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Add a footnote before specific text with proper superscript formatting.' This specifies the verb (add), resource (footnote), and location (before specific text). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_footnote_after_text' or 'add_footnote_enhanced,' which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools for footnotes (e.g., 'add_footnote_after_text,' 'add_footnote_enhanced'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The second sentence about 'enhanced function' is vague and doesn't clarify usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'enhanced footnote addition' and 'guaranteed superscript formatting', which suggests reliability and specific formatting outcomes. However, it lacks critical behavioral details: whether this tool modifies files in-place or creates new ones (implied by 'output_filename' parameter), what happens if the paragraph_index is invalid, or if there are any rate limits or authentication requirements. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured with two sentences. The first sentence establishes the enhanced nature and key feature (guaranteed superscript formatting), while the second specifies the placement and style handling. There's no wasted language, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a mutation tool for document processing), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It mentions 'enhanced' and formatting guarantees but fails to cover critical aspects: parameter meanings, error conditions, file handling behavior (e.g., whether 'output_filename' creates a new file), or what 'proper style handling' entails. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured documentation, this leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about any parameters—it doesn't explain what 'filename', 'paragraph_index', 'footnote_text', or 'output_filename' represent or how they should be used. With 0% coverage and no parameter guidance in the description, the agent must guess parameter meanings, which is inadequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Enhanced footnote addition with guaranteed superscript formatting. Adds footnote at the end of a specific paragraph with proper style handling.' It specifies the action (add footnote), target (end of specific paragraph), and key features (enhanced, guaranteed superscript formatting, proper style handling). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_footnote_robust' or 'add_footnote_to_document', which prevents a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools for adding footnotes (e.g., 'add_footnote_robust', 'add_footnote_to_document', 'add_footnote_before_text'), the agent receives no help in selecting this specific tool. The description mentions 'enhanced' and 'guaranteed superscript formatting', but these are feature highlights rather than usage guidelines.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. 'Add an image' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify permissions needed, whether the operation is reversible, what happens if the image path is invalid, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies documents.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool modifies documents (a mutation operation) with no annotations, 3 parameters at 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It should explain parameter meanings, behavioral traits like error handling, and expected outcomes to be complete enough for safe use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 3 parameters (filename, image_path, width) are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or how they interact (e.g., whether filename refers to the Word document or output file). This fails to compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add an image') and target resource ('to a Word document'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools that also modify documents (like add_paragraph, add_table, etc.), which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other document-modification siblings like add_paragraph or add_table. It lacks any context about prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate scenarios for image insertion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Add a table' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't specify whether this modifies an existing document or creates a new one, what permissions are required, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens if the document doesn't exist. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool description and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 4 parameters (3 required), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, behavioral implications, error conditions, or what the tool returns. The conciseness comes at the expense of necessary contextual information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about what 'filename', 'rows', 'cols', or 'data' mean, their expected formats, or how they interact. This leaves all parameters completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add a table') and target resource ('to a Word document'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other table-related tools like 'format_table' or 'merge_table_cells', which would require sibling differentiation for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple table-related tools available (format_table, merge_table_cells, set_table_column_width, etc.), there's no indication of whether this is for initial table creation versus modification, or when other table tools might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a mutation ('Set'), implying it modifies document structure, but doesn't specify whether this requires write permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens if the table doesn't exist, or what visual/formatting side effects occur. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool and front-loads the key action. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool performs a mutation (auto-fitting table columns) with no annotations, no output schema, and 2 undocumented parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error conditions, side effects, or return values, nor does it clarify parameter semantics. For a document-editing tool in a rich sibling context, more guidance is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning neither parameter ('filename', 'table_index') has any documentation in the schema. The description provides no information about these parameters—what they represent, expected formats, constraints, or examples. For a tool with 2 required parameters, this leaves the agent guessing about their meaning and proper usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set table columns to auto-fit') and the target resource ('based on content'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'set_table_column_width' or 'set_table_column_widths' by focusing on automatic fitting rather than manual width specification. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings in the description text itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_table_column_width' or 'format_table'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., document must be open, table must exist), performance considerations, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the replacement action but fails to specify critical behaviors: whether the operation is destructive (overwrites existing content), requires specific permissions, handles errors (e.g., missing anchors), or affects document structure. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the core functionality without unnecessary words. However, it could be more front-loaded by explicitly naming key parameters upfront, but overall, it avoids verbosity and gets to the point quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a 6-parameter tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral traits, error handling, or return values, leaving the agent poorly equipped to use the tool correctly in a document editing context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description only mentions 'start_anchor_text', 'end_anchor_text', and implies 'new_paragraphs' as content, but omits 'filename', 'match_fn', and 'new_paragraph_style'. It doesn't explain parameter roles, formats, or interactions, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Replace all content') and the scope ('between start_anchor_text and end_anchor_text'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'replace_paragraph_block_below_header' or 'search_and_replace', which could handle similar content modifications, leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'replace_paragraph_block_below_header' for header-based replacements or 'search_and_replace' for simpler text substitutions. It lacks context on prerequisites, like document accessibility or anchor existence, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions adding an endnote but doesn't cover important aspects like whether this modifies the document in place, requires specific permissions, handles errors (e.g., invalid paragraph index), or what the expected outcome is. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavior, error handling, prerequisites, and doesn't compensate for the missing structured information, leaving the agent with insufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only implies 'paragraph_index' and 'endnote_text' through context but doesn't explain what 'filename' refers to (e.g., path, document name), how paragraph indexing works, or format expectations for endnote text. This adds minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add an endnote') and target ('to a specific paragraph in a Word document'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_footnote_to_document' or other footnote-related tools, which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like footnote tools or other document annotation methods. It states what the tool does but offers no context about appropriate use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While 'Add a footnote' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like: whether this modifies the original file or creates a copy, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates and is front-loaded with the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral implications, parameter details, error handling, or what happens after the operation. Given the complexity of document editing and the many sibling tools, more context is needed for effective tool selection and use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 3 undocumented parameters, the description provides minimal parameter guidance. It mentions 'specific paragraph' which hints at paragraph_index, and 'footnote' which hints at footnote_text, but doesn't explain what filename expects (path? document name?), how paragraph_index works (0-based? 1-based?), or any constraints on footnote_text. The description doesn't adequately compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add a footnote') and target ('to a specific paragraph in a Word document'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its many sibling footnote tools (like add_endnote_to_document, add_footnote_after_text, etc.), which would require more specific differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many alternatives. With multiple sibling tools for footnotes and related document operations, there's no indication of when this specific 'add_footnote_to_document' is appropriate versus other footnote tools or general document editing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the tool applies colors but doesn't disclose whether this modifies the document permanently, requires specific permissions, affects existing formatting, or provides any confirmation of success. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and purpose, with zero redundant words. Every part of the description earns its place by conveying essential information efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 4 parameters (2 required), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral implications, success indicators, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'filename' refers to (e.g., document path), how 'table_index' works (zero-based?), or that 'color1' and 'color2' are hex codes with defaults. This leaves all 4 parameters semantically unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('apply alternating row colors') and the resource ('to a table'), with the benefit 'for better readability' providing useful context. It distinguishes this from general table formatting tools like 'format_table' by specifying the specific visual enhancement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'highlight_table_header' or 'set_table_cell_shading' for other table styling. The description implies usage for readability improvement but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., requires an existing table) or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the conversion action but lacks critical details: whether this modifies the original file, where files are located (local paths, cloud storage), authentication needs, error handling for invalid inputs, or output behavior (e.g., where the PDF is saved). 'Convert' implies a write operation, but specifics are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place by specifying the conversion task and target format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address parameter meanings, behavioral details (like file handling or errors), or output expectations. While concise, it lacks the necessary context for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for two undocumented parameters. It mentions 'Word document' which hints at the 'filename' parameter, but doesn't explain what 'filename' represents (path, URI, etc.) or the optional 'output_filename' parameter at all. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the tool name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Convert') and resource ('Word document to PDF format'). It distinguishes from most sibling tools which focus on document editing, formatting, or information retrieval rather than format conversion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential format conversion siblings that might exist in other contexts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing Word document), exclusions (e.g., what file types are supported beyond 'Word document'), or alternative tools for similar tasks. The sibling list shows no direct PDF-related alternatives, but the description offers no context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a copy, implying a write operation, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether it overwrites existing files, error handling for missing source files, or the format/location of the copied document. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. There's no wasted verbiage or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a file-copy operation with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success status, file path of the copy), error conditions, or dependencies. For a mutation tool with undocumented parameters, more context is needed to ensure reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for the two parameters. The description adds no information about what 'source_filename' and 'destination_filename' represent (e.g., file paths, naming conventions, supported formats) or how they should be used. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters largely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a copy') and resource ('Word document'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other document manipulation tools in the sibling list, such as 'create_document' or 'convert_to_pdf', which also involve document creation/transformation operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. For instance, it doesn't specify whether this should be used instead of 'create_document' for duplicating content or how it relates to 'list_available_documents' for selecting source files. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'create' implies a write operation but fails to mention permissions, whether the style is reusable, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a creation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent with inadequate information to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 8 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter details beyond implying 'style' creation, failing to explain what 'filename', 'style_name', or attributes like 'bold' and 'color' represent. This insufficiently compensates for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('create') and resource ('custom style in the document'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'customize_footnote_style' or 'format_text', which also involve style manipulation, leaving room for confusion about when to choose this specific tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'customize_footnote_style' or 'format_text', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an existing document. It lacks explicit instructions on context or exclusions, offering minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Create a new Word document' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions required, whether it overwrites existing files, rate limits, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Create a new Word document') and adds a key detail ('with optional metadata'). There is zero waste, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, behavioral aspects like error handling, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool creating documents, more context is needed to guide effective agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'optional metadata' but doesn't explain what parameters (filename, title, author) mean or how they're used. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to clarify semantics like filename format or metadata constraints, leaving parameters largely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new Word document'), specifying it's for document creation with metadata. It distinguishes from siblings like 'copy_document' or 'list_available_documents' by focusing on initial creation rather than modification or listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like 'add_paragraph' which might also create content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It mentions 'optional metadata' but doesn't specify prerequisites, such as needing an existing document context or when to choose this over 'copy_document'. The description lacks context for usage decisions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'customize' which implies mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether changes are destructive to existing footnotes, permission requirements, error conditions, or what happens when applied to documents without footnotes. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information, making every word earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, side effects, or how it interacts with existing document structure. Given the complexity and lack of structured documentation, the description should provide much more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for all 5 parameters, the description doesn't compensate at all. It mentions 'numbering and formatting' which hints at some parameters, but provides no specifics about what 'numbering_format' accepts, what 'font_name' values are valid, or how 'start_number' interacts with existing footnotes. The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter names themselves.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('customize') and target ('footnote numbering and formatting in a Word document'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling footnote-related tools like 'add_footnote_enhanced' or 'validate_document_footnotes', which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools related to footnotes (e.g., add_footnote_enhanced, delete_footnote_from_document, validate_document_footnotes), there's no indication of whether this tool is for initial setup, modification, or other specific contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'comprehensive cleanup and orphan removal' and specifies removal from 'document.xml, footnotes.xml, and relationships', which adds some behavioral context beyond a basic delete. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or what 'orphan removal' entails operationally.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste: the first states the core action and key features, the second specifies the affected files. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and 4 parameters, the description is incomplete. It covers the tool's scope and affected components but misses parameter explanations, error conditions, and output details, which are critical for a destructive operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't explain any of the 4 parameters (filename, footnote_id, search_text, clean_orphans), leaving their purposes and interactions unclear. The mention of 'orphan removal' hints at 'clean_orphans' but is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete footnote') and specifies the scope ('with comprehensive cleanup and orphan removal'), distinguishing it from the simpler sibling 'delete_footnote_from_document'. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling tools beyond naming differences.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_footnote_from_document' is provided. The description implies a more thorough deletion process but doesn't specify scenarios or prerequisites for choosing this robust version.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'Delete', implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether the deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, affects document structure, or provides confirmation. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes to the core purpose, adhering perfectly to efficiency standards.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive mutation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral risks, parameter details, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent under-informed for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'a paragraph' and 'a document', hinting at the parameters, but doesn't explain what 'filename' refers to (e.g., file path or identifier) or how 'paragraph_index' is defined (e.g., zero-based indexing). This adds minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a paragraph from a document'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_footnote_from_document' or 'delete_footnote_robust', which target different document elements, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., document must exist), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like those for deleting footnotes, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 tool finds text but doesn't describe what it returns (e.g., positions, counts, or matches), whether it's read-only or modifies the document, error handling for missing files, or performance implications. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or parameter details, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond a basic understanding of its purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description doesn't explain any parameters beyond implying 'text_to_find' and 'filename'. It doesn't clarify the purpose of 'match_case' or 'whole_word', their default values, or how they affect search behavior, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('occurrences of specific text in a Word document'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'search_and_replace' by focusing on finding rather than replacing, though it doesn't explicitly mention this distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_and_replace' or 'get_document_text'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as whether the document must exist or be accessible, or any performance considerations for large documents.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'formats' a table, implying mutation, but doesn't describe what 'format' entails (e.g., overwriting existing formatting, requiring specific permissions, or potential side effects). No information on rate limits, error conditions, or output format is given, leaving significant gaps for a tool with 5 parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('format a table') and key features ('borders, shading, and structure'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It lacks essential details like what 'formatting' entails behaviorally, how parameters interact, what the output looks like, or error handling. For a mutation tool with multiple inputs, this leaves too much undefined for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions 'borders, shading, and structure' which loosely relates to parameters like 'border_style' and 'shading', but doesn't explain any parameters (e.g., what 'table_index' refers to, what 'filename' expects, or how 'shading' is structured). With 5 undocumented parameters, this adds minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('format a table') and the specific formatting elements involved ('borders, shading, and structure'), which distinguishes it from other table-related tools like 'add_table' or 'set_table_cell_shading'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like 'apply_table_alternating_rows' or 'highlight_table_header', which also affect table appearance.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing table), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'format_table_cell_text' or 'set_table_cell_shading', leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does ('Extract comments'), not how it behaves. It lacks details on permissions needed, error handling, output format, or whether it's read-only/destructive. This is inadequate 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action, target, and context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter details, behavioral traits, or output expectations, making it insufficient for a tool with two required parameters and no structured support.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but doesn't explain the parameters. It mentions 'filename' and 'author' implicitly but provides no details on expected formats (e.g., file paths, author names) or constraints. This leaves both parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Extract comments') and target resource ('from a specific author in a Word document'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_all_comments' or 'get_comments_for_paragraph', which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'get_all_comments' or 'get_comments_for_paragraph'. The description implies usage for author-specific comment extraction but offers no context about prerequisites, limitations, or comparison to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'extract comments' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires file access permissions, what format comments are returned in, if there are rate limits, or error handling for invalid paragraph indices. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'extract' means in practice, what format comments are returned in, or how paragraph indexing works. Given the lack of structured data support, the description should provide more operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for both parameters, the description provides no additional semantic information about 'filename' (e.g., path requirements, supported formats) or 'paragraph_index' (e.g., zero-based vs one-based indexing, valid range). The description mentions 'specific paragraph' but doesn't clarify how paragraph identification works, failing to compensate for the schema coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('extract comments') and target resource ('for a specific paragraph in a Word document'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_all_comments' or 'get_comments_by_author', which would require more specific scope clarification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_all_comments' or 'get_comments_by_author'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios independently.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While 'Get information' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify what type of information is returned, whether authentication is required, or if there are any rate limits or constraints. The description is too vague to adequately inform the agent about the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there are no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter documentation coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough context about what information is returned, how to interpret results, or how this tool differs from similar siblings. For a tool with one parameter and no structured documentation, more explanatory content is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, with one undocumented parameter 'filename'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what 'filename' represents, its format, or where documents are located. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('information about a Word document'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'get_document_text' or 'get_document_outline', which also retrieve document information but focus on specific aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_document_text' and 'get_document_outline' available, it's unclear what specific information this tool provides or when it should be preferred over those other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 action ('Get') but doesn't explain what 'structure' entails (e.g., headings, sections, outline levels), whether it's read-only, requires permissions, or handles errors. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (retrieving document structure), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter details, behavioral traits, or output format, making it insufficient for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description doesn't mention the 'filename' parameter at all. It fails to add any meaning beyond the schema, such as file format expectations or path requirements, which is inadequate given the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('structure of a Word document'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_document_info' or 'get_document_text', which also retrieve document metadata, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_document_info' and 'get_document_text' that serve similar retrieval purposes, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get text' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires document access permissions, how paragraph indexing works (0-based vs 1-based), what happens with invalid indices, or if there are rate limits. The description provides basic intent but lacks important operational details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core functionality immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 2 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter requirements, behavioral constraints, error conditions, or return format. Given the complexity of document processing and the lack of structured documentation elsewhere, the description should provide more operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for both parameters, the description provides no information about what 'filename' should contain (path, name, format) or how 'paragraph_index' is interpreted. The description mentions 'specific paragraph' but doesn't clarify indexing semantics or valid ranges, leaving parameters essentially undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get text') and target resource ('from a specific paragraph in a Word document'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_document_text' or 'find_text_in_document', which offer different text extraction approaches.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_document_text' (for full document text) or 'find_text_in_document' (for text search). There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or appropriate contexts for paragraph-based extraction versus other text retrieval methods.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'special highlighting' but doesn't clarify what that means operationally (e.g., whether it modifies the document permanently, requires specific permissions, or has side effects). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the mutation behavior, parameter meanings, expected outcomes, or error conditions. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'table header row' which hints at 'table_index' but doesn't explain any parameters explicitly. It doesn't clarify what 'filename' refers to, what 'header_color' and 'text_color' values represent (e.g., hex codes), or how 'table_index' works (e.g., zero-based).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Apply special highlighting') and target ('table header row'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'format_table' or 'set_table_cell_shading' which could also affect table appearance, but the specific focus on header rows is reasonably clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'format_table' or 'set_table_cell_shading' which might offer similar functionality. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios for applying header highlighting.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('merge cells') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a destructive operation (likely overwriting cell content), permission requirements, error conditions (e.g., invalid ranges), or output format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings, error handling, and output expectations. For a mutation tool with significant parameter requirements, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all 6 parameters. It mentions 'rectangular area' which hints at 'start_row', 'start_col', 'end_row', and 'end_col', but doesn't explain their semantics (e.g., zero-based indexing, inclusive/exclusive bounds). It also doesn't clarify 'filename' (e.g., document path) or 'table_index' (e.g., which table in the document). This adds minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('merge cells') and the target ('in a rectangular area of a table'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'merge_table_cells_horizontal' and 'merge_table_cells_vertical' by implying a more general rectangular merge, though not explicitly contrasting them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'merge_table_cells_horizontal' or 'merge_table_cells_vertical'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing table, or exclusions, like not working on non-rectangular selections.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't reveal critical traits: whether this is a destructive mutation (likely yes, as merging alters table structure), what happens to content in merged cells (e.g., retention or loss), or error conditions (e.g., invalid indices). This is inadequate for a tool with clear mutation implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and scope, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a mutation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral risks, parameter usage, or output expectations. For a tool that modifies document structure, this lack of context could lead to incorrect or unsafe invocations by an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It adds no semantic meaning beyond what the schema names imply (e.g., 'filename', 'row_index'). Key details like what 'table_index' refers to, zero-based indexing, or the inclusive/exclusive nature of 'start_col' and 'end_col' are missing, leaving parameters largely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('merge cells horizontally') and the scope ('in a single row'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from the sibling 'merge_table_cells' (which might be more general) and 'merge_table_cells_vertical' (which handles vertical merging). However, it doesn't explicitly mention the resource (e.g., a document or table), though this is implied by the context of sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'merge_table_cells' or 'merge_table_cells_vertical'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing table) or exclusions (e.g., not applicable across multiple rows). This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('merge') but doesn't describe effects (e.g., data loss, formatting changes), permissions needed, error conditions, or output format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, error handling, and output, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for 5 undocumented parameters. It mentions 'vertically in a single column', which hints at 'col_index', 'start_row', and 'end_row', but doesn't explain 'filename' or 'table_index' or provide details on parameter usage, formats, or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Merge cells vertically in a single column' clearly states the action (merge) and resource (table cells), with 'vertically in a single column' specifying the scope. It distinguishes from sibling 'merge_table_cells' (general) and 'merge_table_cells_horizontal' (horizontal merging), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'merge_table_cells' or 'merge_table_cells_horizontal', nor are prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description implies vertical merging in a column but lacks explicit usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool adds password protection but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects: whether this is a destructive/mutative operation, what permissions are required, how the password is stored/encrypted, whether the original document is modified or a new one created, or what happens on failure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core functionality immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after protection is added, what the return value is, error conditions, or important behavioral constraints. The context signals indicate significant gaps in documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'Word document' which hints at the 'filename' parameter, and 'password protection' hints at the 'password' parameter, but provides no details about filename format/path, password requirements/strength, or other constraints. This adds minimal value beyond what's obvious from the tool name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add password protection') and resource ('to a Word document'), providing specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'unprotect_document' or explain how it differs from other document modification tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., document must exist), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'unprotect_document' or other document security tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool replaces paragraph blocks and avoids modifying TOC, which hints at mutation with a safety constraint. However, it doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether it requires specific permissions, what happens to existing content (overwrites vs. merges), error handling, or output format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Spanish that states the purpose and key constraint. It's front-loaded with the main action and has zero wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and a constraint but misses parameter details, behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output expectations. For a tool that modifies document content, this leaves too many unknowns for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'bloque de párrafos debajo de un encabezado' which loosely relates to 'header_text' and 'new_paragraphs', but doesn't explain parameter meanings, formats, or constraints (e.g., what 'detect_block_end_fn' does). With 4 parameters undocumented in both schema and description, this is inadequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Reemplaza el bloque de párrafos debajo de un encabezado') and the resource (paragraph blocks below headers in documents), with a specific constraint ('evitando modificar TOC'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'replace_block_between_manual_anchors' by focusing on header-based replacement, but doesn't explicitly compare to other paragraph or header tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., document must exist), exclusions (e.g., not for footnotes), or compare to siblings like 'replace_block_between_manual_anchors' or 'delete_paragraph'. The description implies usage for header-adjacent content but lacks explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the action ('replace all occurrences') but doesn't disclose critical traits: whether it modifies files in-place, requires write permissions, handles errors (e.g., file not found), affects formatting, or provides confirmation. For a mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and avoids redundancy. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address permissions, side effects, error handling, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it safely and effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no semantic details about parameters—it doesn't explain what 'filename' expects (path, name, extension), whether 'find_text' supports regex, or if 'replace_text' can be empty. With 3 required parameters and no schema help, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('search for text and replace all occurrences') and resource (implied document/text), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'find_text_in_document' by specifying the replacement action, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other text manipulation tools like 'format_text' or 'replace_block_between_manual_anchors'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., document must exist), exclusions (e.g., not for partial replacements), or compare it to siblings like 'replace_block_between_manual_anchors' for more targeted operations. Usage context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('Set') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a mutation, what permissions are required, if changes are reversible, or how errors are handled. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral context, and output expectations, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional inference or trial-and-error.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds no information about parameters like 'filename', 'table_index', 'horizontal', or 'vertical', failing to compensate for the coverage gap. It doesn't explain what these parameters mean or how they should be used.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set text alignment') and target ('for all cells in a table'), which is specific and actionable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'set_table_cell_alignment' by specifying 'all cells' versus individual cells. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the resource (e.g., document or file) beyond the implied context from parameters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'set_table_cell_alignment' or 'format_table'. The description implies bulk alignment but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a mutation (likely), what permissions are needed, if changes are reversible, error conditions, or side effects on document structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. There's no wasted wording, making it easy to parse, though it may be overly terse for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter meanings, behavioral context, return values, and error handling, which are essential for a mutation tool with multiple inputs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter semantics. It doesn't explain what 'filename', 'table_index', or alignment values mean, their formats, or constraints beyond the schema's basic types and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Set') and resource ('text alignment for a specific table cell'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'set_table_alignment_all' by specifying 'cell' rather than whole-table operations, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'format_table_cell_text' or 'set_table_alignment_all'. The description implies usage for cell-level alignment but offers no context about prerequisites, dependencies, or typical workflows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are needed, how errors are handled, or what happens if the cell doesn't exist. 'Set' implies mutation, but no safety or side-effect information is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that's front-loaded with the core purpose. There's no wasted language or redundancy, making it appropriately concise for a tool with this name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks critical context about behavior, parameters, error handling, and output, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'filename', 'table_index', or padding values represent, their formats, or that 'unit' defaults to 'points'. With 9 parameters (4 required) completely undocumented, this is inadequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set padding/margins') and target ('for a specific table cell'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'set_table_cell_alignment' or 'set_table_cell_shading' that also modify table cells, 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., document must exist), exclusions, or comparisons to similar sibling tools like 'format_table' or 'set_table_cell_alignment', leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Apply shading/filling' implies a mutation operation that modifies document content, but the description doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens if the cell doesn't exist, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 6 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and target. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly. This is an example of excellent conciseness, though it may be too brief for complete understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a mutation tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens when the tool executes, what errors might occur, what the return value is, or how to interpret the parameters. For a tool that modifies document content, this level of documentation is inadequate for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for all 6 parameters, the description provides no information about what any parameter means or how to use them. The description mentions 'shading/filling' which hints at 'fill_color' and possibly 'pattern', but doesn't explain what values are acceptable, what 'table_index' refers to, or how indices work. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Apply shading/filling') and target ('to a specific table cell'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'format_table_cell_text' or 'highlight_table_header' by focusing specifically on cell shading rather than text formatting or header highlighting. However, it doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from other table formatting tools like 'format_table' or 'apply_table_alternating_rows'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., document must exist, table must exist), when not to use it, or what alternatives exist for similar functionality. Given the many sibling tools for document manipulation, this lack of contextual guidance is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the action ('Set') implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to document state, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core action, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions rather than being a virtue of conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 5 parameters (4 required), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, usage context, or expected outcomes. The tool modifies document structure yet provides minimal guidance for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'filename', 'table_index', 'col_index', 'width', or 'width_type' mean, their expected formats, or relationships. The description fails to provide any semantic context beyond what's inferable from parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and target resource ('width of a specific table column'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'set_table_column_widths' (plural) by focusing on a single column, though this distinction could be more explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., document must exist), compare to sibling tools like 'auto_fit_table_columns' or 'set_table_column_widths' (plural), or specify when this operation is appropriate versus other table formatting tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a mutation ('Set'), but doesn't disclose whether this operation is destructive, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting document layout). No information about error conditions, validation of widths, or response format is included.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly despite its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 4 parameters (3 required), 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks essential context about parameter meanings, behavioral expectations, error handling, and relationship to sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to infer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions 'multiple table columns' which hints at the 'widths' array parameter, but doesn't explain 'filename', 'table_index', or 'width_type' (despite its default value). No details about width units, array format, or table indexing are provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and target resource ('widths of multiple table columns'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'set_table_column_width' (singular) by specifying 'multiple' columns, though it doesn't fully differentiate from other table formatting tools like 'format_table' or 'auto_fit_table_columns'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'set_table_column_width' (singular), 'auto_fit_table_columns', or 'format_table'. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., document must exist, table must be present) or typical scenarios for applying column width adjustments.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 action 'Set', implying a mutation, but does not disclose critical traits like whether this operation is destructive, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting table layout), or any rate limits. The description is too minimal to inform the agent adequately about behavioral risks or constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to provide necessary context such as parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or usage guidelines, leaving the agent under-informed for safe and effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions 'overall width of a table', which hints at the 'width' parameter but does not clarify the meaning of 'filename', 'table_index', or 'width_type'. Without this, the agent lacks understanding of what each parameter represents, leaving significant gaps in parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and resource ('overall width of a table'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_table_column_width' or 'set_table_column_widths', which suggests it might be for table-level vs. column-level adjustments, but this distinction is not explicitly stated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'set_table_column_width' or 'format_table'. It lacks context about prerequisites, like requiring an existing table, or exclusions, such as not applying to specific table types. This omission leaves the agent without clear usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool's purpose but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., irreversible changes), error handling, or output format, which are critical for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loaded with the core action. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, and outcomes, failing to provide enough context for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description doesn't explain the two required parameters ('filename' and 'password'). It fails to add meaning beyond the schema, such as file format expectations or password validation rules, leaving parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove password protection') and the resource ('from a Word document'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'protect_document' beyond the obvious opposite action, missing explicit contrast.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. While 'protect_document' is a sibling, the description doesn't mention it or any prerequisites, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns a 'detailed report on ID conflicts, orphaned content, missing styles, etc.', which gives some behavioral context about output content. However, it lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, if it modifies the document, permission requirements, error handling, or report format. For a validation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second adds valuable output details. Both sentences earn their place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (validation tool with potential side effects), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and output content but misses parameter semantics, behavioral traits (e.g., safety, permissions), and detailed usage context. For a tool that likely interacts with document integrity, more guidance is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the single parameter 'filename'. It doesn't explain what the filename refers to (e.g., path, document name), expected format, or constraints. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation, leaving the parameter's meaning unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Validate all footnotes in document for coherence and compliance.' This specifies the verb (validate), resource (footnotes in document), and scope (all footnotes). It distinguishes from sibling tools that add, delete, or customize footnotes rather than validate them. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential validation of other document elements.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., document must exist), exclusions (e.g., not for endnotes), or compare with sibling tools like 'customize_footnote_style' or 'delete_footnote_from_document'. Usage is implied only from the purpose statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Add a page break' which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it modifies the document in-place, requires specific permissions, or has side effects like affecting pagination. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations, 1 parameter at 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral context, and expected outcomes, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It doesn't mention the 'filename' parameter at all, failing to add meaning beyond the schema. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is higher, but the description doesn't explain what 'filename' refers to (e.g., document name or path), resulting in a minimal viable score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add') and resource ('page break to the document'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'add_paragraph' or 'insert_line_or_paragraph_near_text', which could also affect document structure, so it's not fully specific to sibling context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. With siblings like 'add_paragraph' or 'insert_line_or_paragraph_near_text' that might serve similar formatting purposes, the description lacks context on appropriate scenarios or exclusions, offering minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a deletion operation but doesn't mention whether this is destructive/permanent, whether it modifies the original file or creates a new one, what permissions are required, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and identification options. No wasted words, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the mutation behavior, file handling (in-place vs new file), error conditions, or relationship to sibling tools. The agent would struggle to use this correctly without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 4 parameters, the description adds some value by explaining the two identification methods (ID vs search_text). However, it doesn't cover filename or output_filename parameters, nor does it explain the relationship between footnote_id and search_text (mutually exclusive? both required?). The description partially compensates but leaves significant gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('footnote from a Word document'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling 'delete_footnote_robust' - both appear to delete footnotes, so the distinction isn't explained.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_footnote_robust' or other deletion tools. The description mentions two identification methods but doesn't explain when to choose one over the other or any prerequisites for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions extraction but doesn't specify output format, error handling, permissions needed, or whether it's read-only or destructive. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of extracting comments (which could involve structured data), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'extract' entails—e.g., format, pagination, or error cases—leaving the agent with incomplete context for proper use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description implies a 'filename' parameter is needed for the Word document, but with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't add details like file path format, supported extensions, or handling of non-existent files. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is higher, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Extract') and resource ('all comments from a Word document'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_comments_by_author' or 'get_comments_for_paragraph', which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_comments_by_author' or 'get_comments_for_paragraph', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for usage. It merely states what the tool does without indicating appropriate scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'extract' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, how large documents are handled, what format the text is returned in, or whether there are any limitations on document size or complexity. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise - a single sentence that communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and earns its place efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what format the extracted text is returned in, whether formatting is preserved, how errors are handled, or any limitations. Given the complexity of document processing and the lack of structured documentation, the description should provide more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description doesn't add any information about the 'filename' parameter beyond what's implied by the tool name. The baseline for a single parameter with no schema description would be higher, but the description doesn't compensate by explaining what format the filename should be in, whether it needs a path, or what document types are supported.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Extract all text') and resource ('from a Word document'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_paragraph_text_from_document' or 'find_text_in_document', which offer related text extraction capabilities with different scopes or methods.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple text-related sibling tools (get_paragraph_text_from_document, find_text_in_document, get_document_info), the description offers no context about when this comprehensive extraction is preferred over more targeted approaches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves XML structure, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify if it requires file access permissions, handles errors for missing files, or describes the output format (e.g., XML string). 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (retrieving XML from documents), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not address key aspects like output format, error handling, or dependencies, leaving the agent with insufficient information for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, with one parameter 'filename' undocumented. The description adds no details about the parameter, such as expected format (e.g., file path, document name) or constraints. Since schema coverage is low, the description fails to compensate, resulting in a baseline score of 3 due to the single parameter being straightforward but unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('raw XML structure of a Word document'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_document_text' or 'get_document_info', which reduces the score from a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_document_text' for plain text or 'get_document_info' for metadata. It lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what the tool does but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, what happens with invalid directories, error handling, output format, or performance characteristics. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core functionality immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'List' returns (array of filenames? full paths? metadata?), error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a tool in a rich document-processing context, this leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'specified directory' which maps to the 'directory' parameter, adding context about what the parameter represents. However, it doesn't explain the default value '.' or provide format/validation details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as it adds some meaning but doesn't fully compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('.docx files in the specified directory'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on file listing rather than document manipulation, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar listing tools (none present in siblings).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or context for choosing this tool over other document-related operations. With many sibling tools for document editing, this gap is significant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions 'optional formatting' but doesn't specify whether this tool modifies an existing document in place (implying mutation), what happens if the file doesn't exist, whether it requires write permissions, or if it returns any confirmation. For a tool that likely mutates documents, this is insufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a bulleted list of parameters with brief explanations. Every sentence earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter explanations into a single paragraph, but overall it's well-organized and avoids redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers parameter semantics adequately but lacks behavioral details (e.g., mutation effects, error handling) and output expectations. For a document-editing tool with many siblings, it should provide more context on usage and differences, but it meets a baseline level of functionality explanation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by listing all 8 parameters with clear explanations of their purposes (e.g., 'font_name: Font family', 'color: Text color as hex RGB'). It distinguishes required vs. optional parameters implicitly through the 'Args:' section and examples. However, it doesn't clarify interactions between parameters (e.g., if 'style' overrides individual formatting options), leaving minor gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Add a paragraph to a Word document with optional formatting.' It specifies the verb ('Add'), resource ('paragraph'), and target ('Word document'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'insert_line_or_paragraph_near_text' or 'format_text', which could cause confusion in sibling-heavy contexts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for document manipulation (e.g., 'add_heading', 'format_text', 'insert_line_or_paragraph_near_text'), there's no indication of whether this tool appends paragraphs, inserts them at specific locations, or how it differs from other formatting tools. This lack of context makes it hard for an agent to choose appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the action ('insert') and optional style matching, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether the insertion modifies the document permanently, what happens if the target text isn't found, error handling, or permissions required. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with two sentences: the first states the purpose and key parameters, and the second lists args. It's front-loaded with the core action, but the arg list is somewhat redundant with the schema and could be more integrated for efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, mutation operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic action and parameters but misses critical context like error conditions, return values, side effects, and how it differs from sibling tools, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 6 parameters with brief hints (e.g., 'optional', 'before or after'), adding some meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., using target_text vs. target_paragraph_index), valid values for line_style, or format details, leaving gaps in understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('insert a new line or paragraph') and resources ('before or after the target paragraph'), and it distinguishes the action from siblings like 'add_paragraph' by specifying positional insertion near text. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'insert_header_near_text' or 'insert_numbered_list_near_text' beyond the line/paragraph focus.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by mentioning 'specify by text or paragraph index' and listing optional parameters, which suggests when to use certain arguments. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'add_paragraph' or 'insert_header_near_text', and it doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While it mentions the tool adds a heading with formatting, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this modifies the document in-place, what happens if the filename doesn't exist, whether formatting overrides existing styles, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a comprehensive parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, though the formatting could be slightly more front-loaded with key behavioral information before the parameter details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 8 parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description does an excellent job with parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context. For a document mutation tool, it should address file handling, error conditions, and return values. The parameter coverage is strong, but overall completeness is only adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear documentation for all 8 parameters. Each parameter is named and explained with practical examples (e.g., 'level: Heading level (1-9)', 'font_name: Font family (e.g., 'Helvetica')'), adding significant value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Add a heading'), target resource ('to a Word document'), and scope ('with optional formatting'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'add_paragraph' or 'add_table' by focusing specifically on heading creation with formatting options.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for document manipulation (e.g., 'add_paragraph', 'format_text', 'create_custom_style'), there's no indication of when a heading is preferred over other text elements or how this tool relates to similar formatting operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the action ('Insert a header') and parameters, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, whether the operation is destructive to the document, error handling, or what happens if the target text is not found. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core action and then detailing parameters. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating usage notes from parameter lists).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., effects on the document, error cases). For a tool with no structured safety hints, this is a notable gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining all 6 parameters, including optional ones, default values, and constraints (e.g., position as 'before' or 'after', header_style default 'Heading 1'). This goes beyond the schema, though it could provide more context on parameter interactions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Insert a header'), specifies the resource ('before or after the target paragraph'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on header insertion with style options, unlike tools like 'add_heading' or 'insert_line_or_paragraph_near_text' which have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through parameter explanations (e.g., 'Specify by text or paragraph index'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_heading' or 'insert_line_or_paragraph_near_text'. It provides some context but lacks clear exclusions or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the action ('Insert') and parameters but lacks behavioral details such as whether this modifies the document in place, requires specific permissions, handles errors (e.g., if target text isn't found), or what the output looks like. It doesn't contradict annotations, but it's insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and key parameters, and the second lists all args with brief explanations. It's front-loaded with the main action, though it could be slightly more polished (e.g., avoiding 'Args:' in the description text).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations or output schema, the description does well on parameters but lacks behavioral context for a mutation tool. It's complete enough for basic usage but misses details like error handling or output format, leaving gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It clearly explains all 6 parameters: 'filename' (the document), 'target_text' or 'target_paragraph_index' (how to locate the paragraph), 'list_items' (content), 'position' (placement), and 'bullet_type' (formatting). This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Insert a bulleted or numbered list'), the resource ('target paragraph'), and the scope ('before or after'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'add_paragraph' or 'insert_line_or_paragraph_near_text' by focusing specifically on lists with formatting options.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by mentioning 'Specify by text or paragraph index' and the positional options, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_paragraph' for plain text or other list-insertion tools if they existed. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Office-Word-MCP-Server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/GongRzhe/Office-Word-MCP-Server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/GongRzhe/Office-Word-MCP-Server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Office-Word-MCP-Server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/GongRzhe/Office-Word-MCP-Server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/GongRzhe/Office-Word-MCP-Server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/GongRzhe/Office-Word-MCP-Server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server