docx-mcp

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 mentions the tool lists comments but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether it requires authentication, how it handles pagination or large datasets, if it's read-only (implied by 'List' but not explicit), or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational constraints.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List all comments') and specifies the returned fields. There is no wasted text, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is minimally complete. It explains the purpose and output fields, but lacks context on usage scenarios, behavioral traits, or integration with sibling tools. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but leaves gaps in operational guidance.

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 appropriately doesn't add parameter details, focusing instead on output semantics (listing fields like ID, author). This aligns with the baseline for zero parameters, providing clarity on what the tool returns without redundancy.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('comments'), including what fields are returned (ID, author, date, text). It distinguishes from siblings like 'reply_to_comment' or 'get_document_info' by focusing on comments only, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other comment-related tools (e.g., 'add_comment' is implied as different).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open document), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_footnotes' or 'search_text' that might overlap in functionality. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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