docx_extract_plain_text

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

With no annotations, the description takes on full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only', indicating non-destructive behavior, and warns against regeneration, highlighting limitations. This adds useful context beyond the tool's name.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating read-only nature and extraction goal, then a warning. It is front-loaded with key info.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers core behavior and limitations. It does not explain return format or full scope (e.g., whether tables are included), but is sufficient for coarse review.

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 only parameter 'docx_path' is not described at all; the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not, though the parameter is self-explanatory.

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 it extracts visible body text for coarse review, specifying a verb ('Extract') and resource ('visible body text'). However, it does not distinguish from similar sibling tool 'docx_export_plain_text', missing a chance to differentiate.

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 advises 'never use to regenerate DOCX', providing a clear exclusion. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'docx_export_plain_text', leaving some ambiguity.

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