has_tracked_changes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the 'Read-only' addition is redundant. However, the description adds behavioral context by specifying the types of markers checked (insertions, deletions, moves, property-change records), which annotations do not cover. No contradictions.

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 sentence plus 'Read-only.' Extremely concise, front-loaded, and every word adds value.

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 check tool with one parameter and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It explains what markers are checked but does not describe the return value (likely boolean) or any edge cases. Given no output schema, this is a minor gap.

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 covers 100% of parameters with description 'Path to the DOCX file.' The tool description adds no additional meaning or constraints to the parameter beyond the schema, meeting the baseline.

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 checks for tracked-change markers (insertions, deletions, moves, property-change records) in the document body. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being read-only and focusing on detection, while siblings like accept_changes or add_comment modify content.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like accept_changes or extract_revisions. The read-only nature implies safe pre-check usage, but the description does not explicitly state this or provide context for when it is appropriate.

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