word_document_outline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature implicitly via 'Map' and 'Returns', and specifies the output (non-empty paragraphs with index and text preview). However, it doesn't explicitly state that no modifications are made or address any potential side effects or limitations (e.g., max_chars effect on preview).

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?

Three short sentences, each with a distinct role: purpose, output, and usage guidance. No redundancy or fluff. The most critical information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple and the description covers purpose, output, and usage timing. However, the lack of parameter semantics for 'max_chars' leaves a gap in completeness. The output schema existence mitigates the need to describe return values in detail, but the description still omits important behavior around the optional parameter.

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%, and the description provides no information about the two parameters. 'document_path' is self-explanatory from its name, but 'max_chars' is entirely undocumented—no description or hint about its purpose in controlling preview length. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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 identifies the tool's function: mapping a .docx paragraph by paragraph to enable citation placement. The verb 'Map' is specific, the resource is '.docx', and the scope is distinct from sibling tools that manage citations or Zotero items.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Read this before inserting, so anchor text matches the document exactly.' This tells the agent when to use the tool relative to citation insertion. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear.

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