r7_docx_formatting

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden; it discloses the key behavioral trait that values are normalized (points, #RRGGBB, never raw OOXML), which materially shapes output interpretation. It stops short of explicitly confirming the operation is non-mutating, though 'Read' implies it.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb+resource and the 'before changing it' rationale, followed by the enumerated payload. It is long but every clause enumerates real content, so little is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description bears the return-shape burden and does so thoroughly, enumerating paragraph, table, section and header/footer detail. For an 8-param read tool it is complete enough to call correctly.

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%, so every parameter (count, fromParagraph, includeRuns, includeTables, etc.) is already documented in the schema with defaults. The description lists return content but adds no syntax or semantics beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Read') plus resource ('normalized formatting of a DOCX document') and an enumeration of exactly what is read (paragraph styles, table cells, sections, headers/footers). It stands apart from generic siblings like r7_inspect/r7_read through specificity, though it never names them 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?

The phrase 'before changing it' implies a when-to-use (inspection prior to an edit), which is useful implied guidance. It stops short of stating when-not to use it or pointing to the overlapping r7_inspect/r7_read tools for other needs.

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