docx_structural_fingerprint

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only,' which clearly indicates no side effects. It outlines the output components (package parts, hashes, outline, health report), providing a good behavioral summary. Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so adequately.

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 sentence that front-loads the key fact ('Read-only') and efficiently lists the fingerprint components. Every word adds value with no redundancy, making it optimally concise.

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 large number of sibling tools and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It lists what the fingerprint includes but lacks details on how to interpret the output or why one would choose this over similar composite tools like docx_map. More context would help an agent decide appropriately.

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%, and the description does not explain the lone parameter 'docx_path.' Although the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description adds no additional semantics or constraints, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 tool produces a 'strong structure fingerprint' including specific components (package parts, hashes, outline, health). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like docx_health_check or docx_part_hashes which focus on individual aspects. However, it doesn't explicitly state it's a composite/summary, slightly reducing clarity.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It's implied that this tool gives a broad overview while siblings are more specific, but no when-not-to-use or alternative directions are given. The description relies on user inference from the component list.

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