docx.text_runs_analyze

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what kind of output it returns, or any side effects or performance implications. The phrase 'LLM SEES' hints at the output but is vague about the actual return structure.

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 short and to the point, front-loading the primary action. The use of 'ALL' and the parenthetical clarify scope efficiently. No wasted words, though the dash and 'LLM SEES' part is slightly informal but adds informative context.

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 tool that analyzes all text runs and returns formatting details, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format, whether results are structured, or any limitations for large documents. Given extensive sibling tools and no output schema, agents would need more context to invoke it correctly.

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 covers the single docId parameter with a basic description. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 analyzes all text runs, specifically each <w:t> element, and mentions that the LLM sees every word/phrase with formatting. This distinguishes it from other text-related tools by emphasizing 'ALL' runs, but does not explicitly name a sibling for contrast.

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 usage when one needs to inspect every text run with formatting, but it does not state when not to use it or mention alternatives. There is no explicit comparison with similar tools like get_text or read_paragraph_range.

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