inspect_office_document

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden: 'Inspect' implies a non-mutating read, and the enumerated facets give a good sense of what the tool looks for. It does not disclose error behavior on unsupported/corrupt files, file-size or permission constraints, or how findings are presented, so meaningful behavioral gaps remain for an annotation-free tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb and target scope first, followed by the inspection facets. Minor waste in the trailing 'package workflow hints', which is vague and partially overlaps with the earlier 'AI/automation metadata clues'.

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 one-parameter, read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the enumerated list of inspected facets effectively stands in for a description of return content, which is the main thing an agent needs. It falls short only on how results are formatted and what happens with unsupported or malformed files.

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?

With one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'path' fully. The description reinforces the accepted extensions (.docx/.xlsx/.pptx/.pdf), adding a small amount of constraint meaning (local paths only), but introduces no syntax, directory, or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb ('Inspect') plus an enumerated resource set (.docx, .xlsx, .pptx, .pdf) and details the exact forensic facets it extracts (document properties, AI/automation tool fingerprints, hidden sheets, fonts, colours). It is clearly a metadata-forensics tool rather than a general file reader, though it never names or distinguishes itself from the sibling 'sniff_file', so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by the combination of 'local' file scope and the Office/PDF format restriction, which tells an agent this is not for remote URLs or arbitrary binaries. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over 'sniff_file' (which presumably also inspects files) or when not to use it, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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