get_document_info

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.