extract_images_docx

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state overwrite behavior for existing files in output_dir, whether folders are created, what happens on failure, permissions, or count/format of saved images. Given the presence of an output schema the return shape is covered, but the write-to-disk semantics are not.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with the action, target and destination in order. Efficient, though it is the only content, so there is no structural layering to evaluate beyond the one clean sentence.

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 filesystem-mutating extraction tool with no annotations and 0% param coverage, the description leaves key operational facts unspecified (overwrite policy, error handling, output naming). The output schema covers return values, but input-side and side-effect gaps make it inadequate for confident invocation.

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 coverage is 0% and both required parameters (file_path, output_dir) are bare titles with no description anywhere. The description implies what output_dir is (a folder to save images into) but adds no detail on path format, whether it must exist, or any conflict handling, leaving both params under-specified.

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 (Mengekstrak = extract) and resource (embedded image files in .docx) plus where they go (output folder). This distinguishes it from image-related siblings like get_images_info_docx (info) and delete_picture_docx (delete), though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as get_images_info_docx for metadata-only inspection, and no preconditions (e.g., file must exist, be a valid .docx). The agent must infer the entire selection context from the name alone.

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