docx.read_paragraph_range

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says the tool reads paragraphs with formatting info, but does not disclose whether it is read-only (though implied), what happens on out-of-range indices, error behavior, or return format. For a read operation with no annotation safety coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single, well-formatted sentence that immediately states the action and key value (formatting info) upfront. There is no wasted verbiage, and the structure is efficient and scannable.

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 read tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate to understand its purpose but lacks details on return structure, edge cases, and prerequisites. Since annotations are absent, the full onus falls on the description, and it leaves some operational questions unanswered, particularly around what the returned data looks like.

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 coverage is 100% (all three parameters have descriptions in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, just implying the range concept with 'range of paragraphs', but no additional semantic clarity on the parameters or their interplay.

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'), resource ('paragraphs'), and scope ('range' with formatting info like RTL, style, alignment), making it distinct from plain-text reads like get_text. It is clear, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools, so it falls just short of 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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it doesn't mention that get_text should be used for plain text or that this is the tool for formatted extraction. There's no 'when not to use' or reference to siblings, leaving the selection to inference.

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