docx_compare_structure

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

Annotations are absent, so description carries full burden. It states 'Read-only' (no mutation) and the backend default behavior. However, it does not disclose what the comparison report looks like, any side effects, or how the tool behaves with various parameters. Critical behavioral context is missing.

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?

Description is only two sentences, but it is not optimally structured. It includes minor details like backend default but omits more important info. It is concise but at the cost of completeness.

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 complexity (12 parameters, structural comparison), the description is incomplete. No output schema is provided, and the description does not describe the comparison logic, the meaning of 'structural comparison', or how parameters control the behavior. Many sibling tools exist, but this description does not help the agent decide.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions in schema. The description does not mention any parameters (e.g., engine, strict, touched_para_ids). Agents cannot infer the meaning or usage of the 12 parameters from this description. This is a severe gap.

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 'structural comparison' and 'Same validation report', indicating a comparison tool. However, it is vague and does not specify what exactly is compared (e.g., paragraphs, tables). Among siblings like docx_validate and docx_text_diff, distinction is minimal. The purpose is clear enough but lacks specificity.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Read-only' and a backend default, but does not compare to siblings like docx_validate or docx_text_diff. The agent is left to infer from the name alone.

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