docx.open

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action and input sources, but omits crucial details: side effects (e.g., does it overwrite an already-open document? load into memory?), prerequisites (e.g., does the file need to exist?), error conditions (e.g., invalid file format), or any state changes. The description is too thin to guide safe invocation.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly conveys the core action and both input modes. It contains no redundant information and is appropriately concise for a simple operation.

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 (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the bare minimum to understand what it does. However, it lacks context on the required workflow (e.g., that opening is usually followed by other docx operations), and does not mention validation, state, or concurrency considerations. For a state-modifying operation, this is somewhat incomplete but acceptable for a basic tool.

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%—both parameters have descriptions. The description adds only the notion that the two parameters are alternative ways to provide the document ('from file or buffer'), which is a minor clarification already implied by their names. It does not explain mutual exclusivity or behavior when both are provided. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema already documents the parameters.

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 opens a DOCX document, specifying two input modes: from a file path or a buffer. It distinguishes the action from sibling tools like docx.close or docx.save, but does not elaborate on what 'open' means (e.g., loading into memory, becoming the active document), which holds it back 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?

The description implies that opening is a prerequisite before using other docx tools, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention workflow context (e.g., must be called before editing), nor does it say when not to use it. The 'from file or buffer' indicates two usage paths, but no criteria for choosing one over the other.

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