docx-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes what the tool does (audits structural aspects) and the output (a detailed report with valid/invalid status), covering key behavioral traits like scope and return format. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, or performance characteristics (e.g., time complexity).

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a bulleted list of checks and a clear statement about the return value. Every sentence earns its place by adding specific information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity (multiple checks) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is largely complete. It details the audit scope and output format, but could improve by mentioning prerequisites (e.g., requires an open document) or behavioral nuances (e.g., read-only operation).

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by explaining the audit's scope (the listed checks) and output semantics, which goes beyond the empty schema. It compensates well for the lack of parameters by clarifying what the tool inspects.

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 specific action ('Run a comprehensive structural audit') on a specific resource ('the document'), distinguishing it from siblings like validate_footnotes or validate_paraids which check only specific aspects. It explicitly lists the checks performed, making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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 through the list of checks (e.g., for verifying document integrity), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate_footnotes or validate_paraids. No guidance on prerequisites (e.g., document must be open) or exclusions is provided, leaving usage context inferred rather than stated.

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