safe-docx

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

While annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, the description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying exactly what constitutes a 'tracked change' (four distinct marker types). The trailing 'Read-only' confirms the annotation without contradiction. Does not mention return format (boolean), which would be helpful given the lack of output schema.

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?

Two efficient sentences with zero redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the core action and includes specific details about scope; the second confirms the safety property. No filler words or tautology.

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?

Appropriately complete for a single-parameter read-only inspection tool. Lists specific tracked change types covered. Minor gap: does not indicate return type (boolean/presence) given the absence of an output schema, though this is partially inferable from 'Check whether'.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage ('Path to the DOCX file'), the schema fully documents the single parameter. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics, but none are needed given the complete schema documentation. Baseline score appropriate for complete schema coverage.

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?

Excellent specificity: states the exact action ('Check'), the target resource ('document body'), and enumerates the specific marker types detected (insertions, deletions, moves, property-change records). The verb 'Check' clearly distinguishes this boolean query from sibling mutation tools like accept_changes or extract_revisions.

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?

Provides implied usage through the verb 'Check' (suggesting a boolean return suitable for conditional logic), but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over extract_revisions. No prerequisites or when-not guidance is provided, though the distinction is somewhat inferable from the tool names.

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