docx_list_comments

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It states read-only, which is good. However, it does not disclose pagination, limits, or behavior when file is missing or corrupted. The term 'previews' is vague.

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?

Extremely concise, one sentence. While it wastes no words, it omits important details. Could be slightly expanded to clarify parameters and behavior 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 two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output structure, how 'max_preview' affects results, or how this tool differs from sibling 'docx_extract_comments'.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions 'previews' but does not explain 'max_preview' parameter (default 500) or what 'hashes' refer to. 'docx_path' is obvious but still undocumented.

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?

Clearly states it is read-only and extracts comments previews, author/date/id, and hashes. The verb 'list' suggests enumeration, distinguishing it from potential extraction tools. However, it does not differentiate from sibling 'docx_extract_comments' which likely has similar purpose.

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 when to use or when not. No mention of alternatives among the many sibling tools. The tool is described as read-only, implying safe usage, but no guidance on context or priority.

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