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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states basic purpose without disclosing behavioral traits like idempotency, limits, or error handling for non-existent files.

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 a single short sentence that lacks necessary detail, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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 complex input schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide sufficient context about return values, error handling, or content structure.

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 description does not explain any parameters. The complex content array structure is left entirely to the schema, adding no value.

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 clearly states the action 'append' and the resource 'existing Word document' with location 'at the end', distinguishing it from siblings create_document and read_document.

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 implies use for adding content to existing documents but does not explicitly state when to use or not use, nor does it mention prerequisites like file existence.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden. It details the content structure but does not disclose return values, overwrite behavior, permissions, or side effects beyond creation. Partial transparency.

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 concise, using a structured format with examples. It front-loads the purpose and then details the content schema without extra words. Could be slightly more organized but effective.

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 is provided, and the description does not mention return values or error handling. While input is well-covered, completeness for a creation tool would benefit from describing the result. Acceptable but not fully complete.

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 33% (only filePath has description). The description adds substantial meaning to the 'content' parameter by explaining the array structure, item types, and subfields (runs, list, table). This compensates for low schema coverage.

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 clearly states it creates a Word document ('创建 Word 文档') and explains the content structure. It distinguishes from sibling tools 'append_document' and 'read_document' by implying creation vs. modification or reading.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the purpose is clear from the verb 'create' and sibling names. It provides no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance, but context is sufficient.

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

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

No annotations provided; description states only that it reads plain text. Does not disclose encoding, size limits, error handling, or whether the file is read-only (though that is implied). Minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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?

Single sentence is concise but lacks any structure or additional context. While no waste, it is under-specified for a tool with no annotations or output schema.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but missing return format, error behavior, and supported document types. Not fully complete.

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 has 0% description coverage and description adds no meaning to the 'filePath' parameter (e.g., no format, absolute/relative hint, supported file types). The parameter remains unexplained.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'read' and resource 'Word document's plain text content', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools 'append_document' and 'create_document' which modify rather than fetch content.

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?

Implied usage: use when needing to extract text from a Word document. No explicit when-not or alternatives are given, but siblings provide contrast.

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