docx_export_plain_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It correctly states the tool is non-destructive ('does not modify DOCX') and writes a sidecar file. However, it lacks details on whether it overwrites existing files, permissions needed, or what 'visible body text' excludes (e.g., headers/footers).

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 very concise (one sentence), which is good for readability. However, it omits critical information, making it under-specified. Every sentence earns its place, but more is needed.

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 has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not specify whether 'out_path' is optional, the default output name, or the text encoding. Among many sibling tools, this one lacks context to distinguish its exact purpose.

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. It provides no explanation of the 'docx_path' or 'out_path' parameters, such as their purpose, format, or default behavior. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 exports visible body text to .txt and does not modify the DOCX. However, it does not differentiate from the similarly named sibling tool 'docx_extract_plain_text', which likely performs the same function.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like docx_extract_plain_text or other export tools. The phrase 'Write-sidecar only' hints at a use case but is not explicit about prerequisites or context.

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