add_word_list

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 basic mutation, adding a list, but does not say whether the list is appended to existing content, whether the file is created if missing, how errors are handled, or what the tool returns.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a minimal parameter list. The only noticeable waste is the tautological 'items: List items' line, but overall the structure is efficient and scannable.

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?

For a simple three-parameter tool, the essential invocation details are present, and the ordered default is communicated. However, with no annotations and no output schema, an agent is left to guess about file-existence requirements, append behavior, error semantics, and return values, making this minimally viable but not complete.

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 Args block in the description must compensate. It gives useful terse explanations for all three parameters, especially 'ordered: True for numbered list, False for bullet.' However, 'items: List items' is essentially a tautology and no extra constraints or value formats are provided.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a bulleted or numbered list to a Word document.' This clearly identifies the operation and differentiates it from sibling tools like add_word_heading, add_word_paragraph, and add_word_table without needing to name them.

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 intended use case is implied by the wording and by the sibling context: use this tool when you need a list in a Word document rather than a heading, paragraph, or table. However, there is no explicit guidance about prerequisites, such as whether the document must already exist, or about situations where an alternative would be more appropriate.

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