docx_health_check

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

Description starts with 'Read-only' which is good, and lists what it checks. However, it does not disclose behavior about limits, side effects, or performance. Since no annotations exist, the description carries full burden; it provides some transparency but incomplete.

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?

Single sentence with front-loaded key information ('Read-only. Conservative stability report:') and a concise list of checked items. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description lists what the report covers but does not describe output format or return structure. Given no output schema, this is a gap. For a health check tool with only 2 parameters, it is somewhat complete but lacks detail on what 'recommended safety policy' means.

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 has 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the parameters (docx_path, max_items) beyond the schema. It lists output contents but not how parameters affect behavior. Minimal added value for parameter understanding.

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 is a 'read-only conservative stability report' and lists specific elements it checks (duplicate tags, content controls, fields, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on specific aspects like reading paragraphs or tables.

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 implies this is a high-level health check, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when to use docx_list_comments vs this tool). The usage context is implied but not directly stated.

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