docx_part_hashes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses the tool is read-only, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not explain what 'compact' means, return format, performance implications, or whether it accesses the file system (docx_path). More detail would improve 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 sentence with no extraneous words. It conveys essential information efficiently and is front-loaded with 'Read-only' to immediately inform about safety.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the purpose and invariants use case. However, it lacks details on the output structure (what does the hash map contain?) and what 'parts' refers to. Some completion is missing for full autonomy.

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 has 0% description coverage for the only parameter docx_path. The description does not explain what docx_path is (e.g., path to the DOCX file) or any constraints (e.g., file must exist). This leaves the agent without guidance on how to fill the parameter.

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 returns a compact DOCX part-hash map and specifies its use case 'for before/after invariance checks'. The verb 'get' is implied, and it distinguishes from siblings like docx_structural_fingerprint by specifying 'part-hash map'. Purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides clear context by stating the tool is for invariance checks, implying use when comparing DOCX state before and after modifications. However, it does not explicitly exclude other uses or contrast with sibling tools that might serve similar purposes (e.g., docx_structural_fingerprint).

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