docx_inspect

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

The description correctly labels the tool as 'Read-only', which is essential behavioral information given no annotations. It hints that 'include_text' controls visibility of text. However, it lacks details about return format, side effects, or behavior when 'include_text' is true/false.

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 (one sentence) with important qualifier 'Read-only' front-loaded. It wastes no words. However, the brevity sacrifices some helpful detail, and a slightly longer description could improve clarity without losing conciseness.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, what 'counts' or 'anchors' entail, or how parameters affect output. For a tool with two parameters and many siblings, more detail is needed.

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 explain parameters. It only mentions 'optional visible text', which vaguely relates to 'include_text', but does not describe 'docx_path' or define 'include_text' semantics. This leaves the agent guessing parameter usage.

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 is read-only and inspects 'counts, anchors and optional visible text'. This identifies the action and objects, distinguishing it from siblings like docx_read_anchor or docx_extract_plain_text. However, it does not specify what is being counted (e.g., paragraphs, tables), which could reduce clarity.

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. The sibling list includes many specific read and inspect tools, but the description offers no context about trade-offs, prerequisites, or scenarios where docx_inspect is preferred.

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