docx_list_hyperlinks

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It declares read-only behavior and hints at preview truncation via 'preview'. However, it does not disclose details about hash computation or relationship targets, but the key behavioral traits (safe, read-only) are communicated.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys purpose and key output details efficiently.

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 covers the basic purpose and output elements but lacks detail on the return format (e.g., structure of each hyperlink entry) and does not explain the 'max_preview' parameter. Given no output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters. 'docx_path' is obvious, but 'max_preview' is not described beyond the schema. The description fails to add meaning to the parameters, which is critical given zero schema descriptions.

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 lists hyperlinks, specifies it's read-only, and mentions what is included (targets, preview, hashes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list other document components.

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 read-only usage but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like docx_list_anchors or docx_search_text. No exclusions or context for selection are given.

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