docxGetRawContent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output is '纯文本内容(去格式)' (plain text without formatting), which is useful. However, it doesn't address critical behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is required, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens with large documents. For a tool that fetches document content, this leaves significant gaps.

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 efficiently structured in a single Chinese sentence that states the purpose upfront. The parenthetical '(去格式)' and usage note '用于阅读/总结' add value without unnecessary elaboration. While concise, it could potentially benefit from slightly more detail given the complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 tool with 2 parameters (one required), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It explains what the tool does at a high level but fails to provide necessary context about parameters, authentication requirements, error handling, or output format details. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional information.

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 0% schema description coverage for 2 parameters, the description provides no information about the 'document_id' or 'lang' parameters. It doesn't explain what format the document_id should be in, where to obtain it, what the lang parameter controls, or what values it accepts. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.

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 action ('获取' meaning 'get'), the resource ('新版云文档的纯文本内容'), and the transformation ('去格式' meaning 'remove formatting'). It distinguishes from potential siblings by specifying '纯文本内容(去格式)' rather than formatted content. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'feishu_fetch_doc' or 'docxListBlocks' that might handle similar documents.

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 implied usage context with '用于阅读/总结' (for reading/summarizing), suggesting this tool is appropriate for content extraction tasks. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'feishu_fetch_doc' or 'docxListBlocks', and doesn't mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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