read_docx

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that both text and tables are extracted (scope of the read), and the verb 'Membaca' implies a non-destructive operation. However, it says nothing about auth/permission needs, failure modes on corrupt or password-protected files, or whether reading is limited to a single file.

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 short sentence with the key information front-loaded and zero padding. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter read tool, though the brevity is also what leaves the gaps noted elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the tool is structurally simple (one required parameter). Still, with no annotations and no parameter documentation, the definition leaves the agent without guidance on file-path expectations or edge-case behavior.

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% and the sole parameter (file_path) is untyped in the schema beyond 'string'. The description never mentions the parameter, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap — it does not clarify format (absolute vs relative), extension requirements, or whether only .docx is accepted.

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 (read) and resource (.docx file) plus the extraction scope ('all text content and tables'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the many mutation-oriented docx siblings. It does not explicitly name any sibling or contrast itself with the other readers (get_header_footer_docx, get_page_setup_docx), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer from the name and from the sibling list that this is the pure content-extraction path.

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