docx_read_anchor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It explicitly states 'Read-only', which discloses non-destructiveness. It does not describe error behavior (e.g., missing anchor), rate limits, or output format (since no output schema). It adds basic context but lacks depth for a tool with no annotations.

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 conveys the essential purpose without any extraneous words. Every token serves a clear function, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 has 3 parameters (1 optional), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the optional max_chars parameter or the nature of the returned text (e.g., plain text vs. formatted). Agents would need external knowledge to use it effectively.

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%, and the description does not explain any parameter beyond anchor_id's source. docx_path and max_chars are not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from the schema types alone. The description fails to add value over the raw schema.

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 action ('Read'), the resource ('text behind an anchor_id'), and the prerequisite tool ('docx_list_anchors'). It distinguishes from siblings like docx_list_anchors by specifying a different operation. However, the phrase 'behind an anchor_id' is slightly ambiguous, though context makes it understandable.

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 implicitly tells when to use this tool: after listing anchors with docx_list_anchors. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to guidelines, but the coupling with the sibling tool is clear. Among the sibling tools, this is the only one that reads text by anchor ID, so usage context is well-defined.

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