MD-DOCX Converter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior by stating it reads and returns content as Markdown, but lacks details on error handling, file size limits, or performance aspects. It adds basic context but does not fully compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidelines in the second. Both sentences are essential and waste no words, making it highly efficient and easy to scan.

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 low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose and usage well but could benefit from more behavioral details like error cases or limitations to fully compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies the 'path' parameter is for the document location but does not specify format or constraints. With only one parameter, the baseline is high, and the description adds some meaning by linking it to Word documents, though more detail would improve clarity.

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 specific action ('Read a Word (.docx) document') and the resource type, with a precise outcome ('return its full content as Markdown text'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'convert_docx_file_to_md' by emphasizing reading rather than conversion, and from 'write_docx' by focusing on input rather than output.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when the user asks you to read, summarise, edit, or work with a Word document'), which covers common scenarios. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'convert_docx_file_to_md' for different purposes, leaving some ambiguity.

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