add_equation_docx

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses supported input formats, block/inline modes, numbering, placeholder replacement, font size, alignment, and placement in paragraph or table cell, but omits mutation side effects (e.g., file modification, permissions required) and error conditions.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then lists features in a dense but information-rich sentence. No fluff, though the list could be better structured for scanning.

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 the tool's complexity (16 parameters, no annotations, no schema descriptions), the description covers core functionality but leaves critical gaps in parameter semantics and behavioral details (file modification, permissions). It is adequate for a basic understanding but not complete enough for reliable parameter selection.

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 0% for 16 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains several key parameters (display_mode, equation_number, placeholder, font_size_pt, alignment, placement) but leaves many undocumented, including text_before, text_after, insert_before, space_before_pt, space_after_pt, and the index parameters for table/paragraph targeting.

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?

States a specific verb (Menyisipkan) and resource (rumus matematika ke file .docx), lists supported input formats, and distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, none of which handle equations.

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 context of inserting an equation into a .docx is implied by the purpose, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite conditions (e.g., file existence). The feature list describes capabilities, not when-to-use.

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