docx_read_content_control

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' and 'safe edits', indicating non-destructive behavior. But it does not detail what happens if the tag is missing or return format, leaving some ambiguity beyond the immediate read action.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with 'Read-only' for immediate clarity. Every word contributes to understanding.

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?

For a simple read tool with two string params and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It lacks detail on return value (plain text?) and error cases, but the intended use is clear. Among many siblings, it is specific enough.

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%. The description adds minimal value: 'by w:tag' implies the tag parameter identifies the content control, but docx_path is entirely unexplained. A tool with two required params should describe both, especially the file path.

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 explicitly states 'Read content-control text by w:tag' and 'Read-only', clearly defining the action (read), the resource (content control identified by tag), and the nature (read-only). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like docx_list_content_controls (list) or docx_write_index (write).

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 says 'Preferred primitive for safe edits', implying use for reading before editing, and 'Read-only' clarifies it is safe. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like docx_list_content_controls for finding tags.

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