word_read_document

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

Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the scope of reading (paragraphs and tables), indicating it does not return other elements like headers or images. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive, safe, or what happens on missing files, though the verb 'read' implies no modification.

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 one efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and scope. No wasted words; it contains exactly the essential information.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description provides adequate context: it identifies the target document and the specific elements read. It doesn't need to detail return values since an output schema exists. Minor omissions like error handling or explicit read-only confirmation slightly reduce completeness.

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 has a single parameter document_path with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explicitly define the parameter, though the tool name and description make it evident that document_path is the file path to the Word document. This minimal inference does not fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 (read), the resource (Word document), and the specific scope (paragraphs + tables). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like word_analyze and word_replace by focusing purely on reading 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?

The description implies this tool is for retrieving the raw content (paragraphs and tables) from a Word document. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like word_analyze (which might analyze content) or provide when-to-use vs alternatives, leaving usage largely inferred.

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