docx_read_table_cell

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Read-only' implying no destructive side effects, and mentions return hash for write preconditions. However, it does not explain what the hash is, or any other behavioral details like error handling or resource locking.

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 (13 words), which is efficient, but it omits essential information such as parameter details and output format. It is front-loaded with 'Read-only', but overall it is too minimal to be fully effective.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value beyond a 'hash', nor does it cover error conditions, prerequisites, or the meaning of 'write preconditions'. The tool's role is partially clear but incomplete.

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 provides no information about any of the 6 parameters (col, row, docx_path, table_index, max_chars, scope_tag). The description fails to compensate for this gap, leaving agents unable to understand parameter roles.

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 verb 'Read' and resource 'single table cell', and adds that it returns a hash for write preconditions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like docx_read_table, but the return value could be more explicit.

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 'Read-only' tag implies it is for reading, not writing, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like docx_read_table or docx_read_paragraph. The description lacks exclusions or context for selection.

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