read_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool reads a file and returns the full text content, and notes the path requirement. It doesn't detail error cases or binary handling, but for a simple read operation, the key behaviors are transparently described without contradiction.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core action ('Reads a .docx file'), then provides usage and prerequisite context. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the function, the output (full text), the path requirement, and a reference to resolve_document for common scenarios. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'path' parameter, describing it as 'Absolute or relative path to a .docx file'. The description adds a pointer to resolve_document for name-only inputs, but this is more usage guidance than parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds marginal value beyond the schema.

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 starts with 'Reads a .docx file and returns the full text content', which is a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_document, get_document_metadata, list_documents, and resolve_document. It also states common use cases ('read, summarize, or analyze a Word document'), reinforcing its purpose.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to read, summarize, or analyze a Word document', providing clear usage guidance. It also gives a practical exclusion: 'use resolve_document first if you only have a document name', naming a specific alternative tool for a prerequisite scenario.

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