Ler DOCX (texto)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses two useful behaviors: it extracts text rather than binary content, and pagination is by character offset/limit. It does not mention error behavior, auth requirements, or output format details, so some transparency gaps remain.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences with no filler. The primary action and resource are front-loaded, and the pagination detail is placed second, making it easy to scan.

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?

This is a relatively simple tool and the description covers its core behavior and pagination semantics. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the agent is left without details on return structure, edge cases, or usage limits.

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, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for offset and limit by specifying they are character-based, but it does not elaborate on the path parameter beyond the workspace-file context.

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 action ('Extrai o texto') and the target resource ('arquivo .docx do workspace'), so an agent can understand what the tool does. It does not explicitly compare itself to sibling tools like read_file or read_pdf, but the .docx focus provides enough implicit differentiation.

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 implies when to use the tool: when text from a .docx file in the workspace is needed. It does not provide explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool would be a better alternative.

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