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 and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it unpacks and parses XML parts, caches them in memory, and enforces a single-document-at-a-time constraint. It could improve by mentioning performance implications (e.g., memory usage) or error handling, but it covers essential operational details.

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 states the core purpose, followed by implementation details and the parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the structure is clear and efficient.

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, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains the tool's behavior and constraints well, and since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to detail return values. However, it could mention prerequisites (e.g., file must exist) or error cases to be fully comprehensive.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that 'path' is an 'Absolute path to the .docx file,' which clarifies the parameter beyond the schema's generic 'string' type. However, it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., file existence, permissions), leaving some gaps.

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 ('Open a .docx file for reading and editing'), the resource ('.docx file'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'close_document' or 'save_document' by focusing on initial access rather than subsequent operations. It goes beyond the tool name by explaining the unpacking and parsing process.

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 clear context by stating 'Only one document can be open at a time; opening a new one closes the previous,' which guides when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'close_document' first. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives, such as distinguishing from 'get_document_info' for read-only access.

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