check_docx_structure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It states that the tool returns only facts and anomaly flags, never a verdict, and it discloses the input-mode constraint that exactly one of path or content_base64 must be provided.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose and scope, output limitation, and input alternatives with the exclusivity constraint. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the structure makes the tool's contract easy to understand.

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 output schema exists and no annotations are present, the description supplies all essential invocation context: what is analyzed, what is returned, how the document can be supplied, and which input combinations are valid. It is complete enough for an agent to select and call the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate — and it does. It explains the meaning and relationship of all three parameters: path as a filesystem location, content_base64 as inline document content, and filename as required when inline content is used. It also communicates the critical exclusivity rule.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Extract structural facts from a .docx file', then enumerates the exact structural dimensions checked. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like check_docx_typography and check_pdf_layout, which target different concerns.

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 establishes clear context for when the tool is appropriate: structural analysis of .docx files, and explicitly notes that it never renders a correctness verdict. It does not name alternative tools or give explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the scoping to structural facts and .docx inputs makes the selection context clear.

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