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. It discloses that the tool lists footnotes, implying a read-only operation, but does not add behavioral details like pagination, error handling, or performance characteristics. It meets a minimal standard without contradictions.

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 directly states the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, read-only operation, and an output schema exists), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies what data is returned, though it could benefit from more behavioral context. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the need for detailed description.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details beyond the schema, but this is appropriate given the lack of parameters, warranting a baseline score above 3.

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 action ('List all footnotes') and specifies what information is returned ('with their ID and text content'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_comments' or 'get_headings'. It uses specific verbs and resources without being tautological.

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 for retrieving footnote data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'validate_footnotes' or 'get_document_info'. It provides basic context but lacks guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.

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