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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the tool requires the document to be open, whether it returns raw XML content, or any side effects (though read implies none). It also does not clarify if the part must exist or what happens if it doesn't. This is a significant gap for a read operation.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is appropriately sized, though it could add a brief note about usage context without becoming verbose.

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 moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the return value looks like (raw XML string?), prerequisites (document must be open), or how it relates to other part-related tools. The sibling list suggests a rich API, but this description leaves the agent guessing about the tool's role.

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 50%: partPath has a description ('Path like "word/document.xml"'), but docId has none. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Since coverage is moderate, the description does not compensate for the missing docId explanation, but the parameter names are self-explanatory.

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 'Read a specific XML part from the document' clearly states the verb (read) and resource (XML part), and distinguishes from siblings like docx.part_write and docx.list_parts. It is specific enough to convey the core purpose, though it could mention that it reads raw XML rather than processed content.

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 for reading raw XML parts, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like docx.get_text or docx.list_parts. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so the agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool name and sibling list.

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