Convert Docx to Markdown

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

No annotations are provided, so the description itself must disclose behavior. It does explain what content is extracted (headings and paragraphs) and the output format (Markdown), but it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, whether it creates a new file or returns a string, or what happens to non-heading/paragraph elements like tables. This leaves notable behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and provides sufficient detail in minimal words. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It clearly communicates the tool's function, though it would benefit from specifying the return format (e.g., Markdown string vs. saved file) to eliminate ambiguity. The sibling context makes the conversion purpose obvious.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single required parameter 'filePath', and the description refers to the target Word document. The tool description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 function: 'Extracts formatted headings and paragraph text from a Word document into structured Markdown.' The verb 'Extracts' and the resource 'Word document' are specific, and the outcome 'structured Markdown' distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_word_document or inspect_word_document.

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 use when the user wants a readable, Markdown-formatted version of a .docx file's headings and paragraphs for analysis. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, such as when tables or images are needed.

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