docx_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It correctly states 'Read-only' indicating no destructive side effects, but does not disclose performance implications, authentication needs, or behavior for large files. The list of included elements provides some transparency.

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 that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and scope without any unnecessary words. Every part adds value.

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 absence of an output schema and the complexity of the tool (producing a map of multiple document aspects), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return structure, how to interpret the map, or any constraints. Parameter descriptions are entirely missing, leaving significant gaps.

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 description provides no explanation of the three parameters (docx_path, max_preview, include_text). With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but fails entirely, leaving the agent to infer meanings from defaults and names.

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 this is a read-only tool that produces a map of various document elements (health, headings, anchors, paragraph chunks, table summaries, hashes). It specifies verb 'map' and resource 'docx', distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on individual elements.

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 labels it 'Read-only' implying safe use, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like docx_list_headings or docx_list_tables. It implies usage as a comprehensive overview, but lacks contextual guidance on when not to use or alternatives.

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