read_document_structure

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions paginated reading and return type (JSON string with text and style), but does not disclose potential side effects, error conditions, or authorization requirements. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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?

Extremely concise: two short paragraphs, the first states the purpose, the second lists parameters. Every sentence is functional and earns its place. No wasted words.

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 4 parameters and existence of an output schema, the description sufficiently describes the tool's capability and return format (JSON with text and style). It does not detail the output schema, but that is expected to be defined separately. Minor omission: lacks description of what 'style information' includes.

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%, but the description adds clear meaning for all four parameters, including defaults, 0-based indexing for start_index, and explanation of include_empty. This goes well beyond the schema which only provides type and title.

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 tool reads Word document content and style information in segments, with explicit verb ('读取') and resource ('Word 文档'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that are write operations (e.g., add, delete, replace) by focusing on 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling read tools (e.g., get_document_info, read_images, read_tables). No exclusions or when-not-to-use information provided.

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