docx_read_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It declares 'Read-only' (safe, no mutation) but lacks details on edge cases (e.g., invalid table_index, empty table, scope_tag filtering behavior). No mention of output format or error handling.

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 short sentences with vital info front-loaded ('Read-only'). Every word adds value; zero waste. Excellent conciseness.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description fails to indicate return format (e.g., 2D array, cell content) or error behavior. Missing prerequisites (e.g., valid docx) and parameter details for required fields. Incomplete given the tool's moderate complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains table_index and scope_tag's roles but omits docx_path (required) and max_chars_per_cell (default 2000). Partial compensation, leaving two parameters undocumented.

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 'Read a table matrix by table_index and optional content-control scope_tag,' specifying the verb (read), resource (table matrix), and key parameters. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like docx_read_table_cell and docx_export_table_csv.

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 mentions read-only and optional scope_tag but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like docx_read_table_cell for single cells or docx_export_table_csv for CSV export. Usage context is implied but not expanded.

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