doc-ops-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 mentions reading various formats but doesn't specify what 'read' entails (e.g., returning text content, handling errors for unsupported formats, or performance considerations). It lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, or output behavior, which is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('read') and resource ('various document formats'), and the list of formats is concise. Every part of the sentence earns its place by clarifying scope.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that reads documents (which could involve complex format handling), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., text content, metadata structure), error conditions, or limitations (e.g., file size constraints). For a tool with 3 parameters and potential format-specific behaviors, more context is needed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (filePath, extractMetadata, preserveFormatting). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as format-specific behaviors or how 'preserveFormatting' interacts with different file types. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'read' and the resource 'various document formats', listing specific file types (DOCX, DOC, TXT, MD, HTML, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'write_document' and 'convert_document' by focusing on reading rather than writing or conversion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'process_pdf_post_conversion' might also involve reading).

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 doesn't mention when to choose this over 'convert_document' for format handling, or when to use it in conjunction with other tools like 'add_watermark'. There's no context about prerequisites, such as file accessibility or format limitations beyond the listed types.

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