word_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action ('Extract all text content') which implies a non-destructive read, but does not mention output format, error handling, or whether .doc is supported. This is adequate but leaves 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 a single, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and immediately conveys what the tool does.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description conveys the purpose and the resource, and it implicitly indicates the return value (the extracted text). Minor gaps include lack of explicit return value description and edge cases, but for such a straightforward tool, the description is nearly 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 100% for the only parameter (path). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which already documents the path as an absolute path to the .docx file. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 extracts text content from a .docx file, using a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('Microsoft Word (.docx) file'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like word_create (which creates) and ppt_read (which reads PPT files).

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 implicitly communicates when to use this tool: for reading text from Word .docx files. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the clarity of the resource and the presence of siblings like ppt_read make it obvious. Minor gap: no explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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