docx_package_manifest

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must shoulder the burden. It only states 'read-only' but omits other behavioral traits like whether the file must be loaded, performance implications, or error conditions.

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 single-sentence and efficient, but could be improved by separating parameter details or adding structure for better scannability.

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, two parameters with zero schema descriptions, and many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what a 'manifest' entails, return format, or how sizes are represented.

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%, yet the description only hints at `include_hashes` by mentioning 'optional SHA-256 hashes'. The `docx_path` parameter is entirely unexplained.

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 read-only and outputs a DOCX ZIP manifest with part sizes and optional SHA-256 hashes. This distinguishes it from generic listing tools like `docx_list_parts` and hash-specific tools like `docx_part_hashes`, though not explicitly.

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 such as `docx_list_parts` or `docx_part_hashes`. The description lacks context about prerequisite conditions or scenarios.

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