list_docx_paragraph_range

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden itself. It does disclose one genuinely useful trait — the returned text is 'accepted', implying tracked changes are resolved rather than raw XML text — and the half-open interval convention. It omits whether the operation is read-only, ordering of results, and behavior for out-of-range or empty indices.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the range semantics come first and the rationale follows. It is efficient, though brevity here borders on under-specification given the undocumented parameters.

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?

Adjusted downward from a naive read: an output schema exists, so return formatting needn't be explained, and the core index semantics are given. For a simple range-read tool the description covers the essential call contract, with the main residual gap being `include_empty`.

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%, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It clarifies start/end as paragraph indices and that end is exclusive, but `include_empty` (a default-false flag that presumably affects whether empty paragraphs consume indices) and `path` are left entirely undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Return accepted text for paragraphs') and pins the scope to an index range [start, end). It signals the region-scoped variant of text reading but never names `read_docx_accepted_text`, so the boundary with that sibling is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'to inspect a known region of a document' implies the triggering condition: the caller already knows paragraph indices. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of what to call instead when indices are unknown (e.g. `read_docx_accepted_text` or `find_docx_term`), and no prerequisites stated.

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