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 describes what the tool does (cross-referencing and flagging mismatches) but lacks details on permissions needed, whether it modifies files, error handling, or output format. It adds value by specifying the validation logic, but falls short of providing complete behavioral context for a tool with no annotations.

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 specifics in the second. Every sentence adds value by explaining the validation checks, with zero waste or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 (validation logic), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does but could improve by mentioning behavioral aspects like file access or error conditions. However, with an output schema, it adequately covers the core functionality without needing to detail outputs.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the inputs. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids discussing parameters. A baseline of 4 is applied as it correctly handles the no-parameter case 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 specific verbs ('cross-reference', 'checks', 'flags') and resources ('footnote IDs', 'document.xml', 'footnotes.xml'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_footnotes' (which retrieves footnotes) and 'validate_paraids' (which validates paragraph IDs) by focusing on validation of cross-references between files.

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 when needing to validate footnote references in a document context, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'audit_document' (which might perform broader checks) or 'validate_paraids' (for paragraph IDs). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat inferred.

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