xpath_query

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions pre-bound namespaces and gives examples but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or that it has no side effects. The output schema exists, but the description lacks safety or permission notes.

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 concise, with a clear first sentence stating the purpose, followed by pre-bound namespace info and representative examples. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded.

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 complexity (two parameters, output schema exists), the description is fairly complete. It covers the tool's purpose, provides examples, and mentions prebound namespaces. However, it lacks guidance on what constitutes a valid part path or error handling, but overall it is sufficient for an AI agent.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying the default part ('word/document.xml') and providing multiple xpath examples that go beyond the schema's property names. However, it does not list all valid parts or constraints on the xpath syntax.

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 'Run XPath against any DOCX part', uses a specific verb+resource combination, and includes examples that illustrate typical queries (e.g., '//w:p' for all paragraphs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_part, which read raw XML of a part.

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 implicitly conveys that this tool is used for querying XML within DOCX parts, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives like read_part or search_text. No usage context or exclusions are provided.

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