docx.part_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only restates the action implied by the tool name and does not reveal what the read returns, whether raw XML is decoded, whether binary parts are handled, or whether the document must be open.

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 brief and front-loaded, containing no wasted words. However, it is so sparse that it sacrifices useful guidance in favor of brevity.

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?

With no output schema and zero annotation support, the description should provide enough context about what a caller can expect from the returned data. It does not explain the return value, behavior with invalid part paths, or how this low-level read relates to the many sibling tools.

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%, so the docId and partPath parameters are already documented. The description adds no deeper meaning about path formatting, accepted part types, or side effects beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('a document part'), making the basic action clear. It is distinct from siblings like part_write and list_parts, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with higher-level reading tools like get_text.

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 gives no guidance on when to use part_read versus alternatives such as list_parts, get_text, or metadata_get. There is no stated context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.

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