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 states the tool retrieves text and style, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify permissions, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the purpose, followed by a concise 'Args' section with essential parameter details. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or verbose language.

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 moderate complexity (single parameter, read operation) and the presence of an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description is somewhat complete. It explains the purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. With no annotations, it should do more to compensate, but the output schema reduces the need for return value details.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'para_id' is an '8-character hex paraId' with an example ('e.g., "1A2B3C4D"'), clarifying the format and usage. Since there is only one parameter, this effectively compensates for the schema's lack of 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 states the tool's purpose: 'Get the full text and style of a specific paragraph by its paraId.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('paragraph'), including what is retrieved ('full text and style'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_headings' or 'search_text', which could also retrieve document content.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the parameter 'para_id' but does not indicate prerequisites (e.g., needing an open document) or compare to siblings like 'get_headings' for structural info or 'search_text' for content-based retrieval. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.

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