docx_read_paragraph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'Read-only' (a safety trait) but fails to mention error behavior, prerequisites, or any side effects. The mention of returning 'hash/complexity' adds minimal behavioral context.

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 very concise (two sentences) and front-loads 'Read-only', but it sacrifices clarity on purpose and parameters. Some structure is sacrificed for brevity.

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 number of sibling tools and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format or how to use the parameters effectively, leaving the agent without sufficient context to select or invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'paragraph_index or paraId' but provides no details on their meaning, format, or which one to prefer. The schema only defines types and required status, lacking semantic help.

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 states 'Read one paragraph' which clearly identifies the action and resource, but the output description 'hash/complexity' is vague and does not fully clarify the tool's purpose. It is not a tautology, but lacks precision.

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 like docx_list_paragraphs or docx_extract_plain_text. The description only says 'Read-only' but does not explain the context for choosing this tool.

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