docx.images_list

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, but it only states the action without elaborating on behavior — e.g., whether this returns image URLs, relationship IDs, alt-text, or positions, whether it includes images in headers/footers or text boxes, and whether it is side-effect-free. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, more context is needed about what 'all images' means 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.

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

Three words, front-loaded, zero fluff. Every word earns its place. It loses one point because the extreme brevity forgoes an opportunity to clarify return format or scope, potentially making the conciseness more under-specified than elegant.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the missing piece is what the returned list contains. The agent knows the input (docId) but cannot predict whether the output is an array of strings, objects with metadata, or references. Given no output schema exists, the description should compensate by hinting at the return shape or scope, which it doesn't. That said, for such a simple tool, the information need is relatively low.

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

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

The schema description coverage is 100% (docId is documented as 'Document ID'), so per the baseline rule, a 3 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is strictly required since the sole parameter is fully documented in the schema. With 1 required param and no enums or nested objects, there's little complexity for the description to clarify.

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 'List all images' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('images'), clearly identifying the operation. It stands apart from siblings like docx.get_text or docx.tables_list since 'images' is a distinct resource. However, it doesn't explicitly state the scope (e.g., document-wide, including headers/footers) or what exactly is listed (file names, inline shapes, both), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, such as docx.list_parts or docx.find, which might also surface image-related references. The name implies a read-only listing operation, but there's no explicit statement of when this is the right choice versus a sibling. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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