docx_text_diff

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

The description explicitly labels the tool as 'Read-only', which informs the agent that it does not modify documents. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention performance implications, file size limits, or output format details beyond 'human review'.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence of eight words. It gets straight to the point, but its brevity sacrifices necessary parameter and usage details. It is front-loaded with the key purpose and read-only nature, earning points for efficiency, but not fully self-contained.

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 two required string parameters (presumably file paths) and one optional integer, the description lacks crucial context about what the diff output looks like, how the 'context' parameter affects it, or its relationship to validation. No output schema exists to compensate, so the description should provide more depth.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters but fails to do so. It does not mention that 'source_docx' and 'target_docx' are required file paths, nor does it explain the 'context' integer parameter (default 2) which likely controls diff context lines. This omission severely hinders correct usage.

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 'Unified visible-text diff for human review', which specifies the tool's purpose as generating a readable diff of visible text. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'docx_compare_structure' (structural diff) and 'docx_extract_plain_text' (plain text extraction) by focusing on visible text for human review.

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 phrase 'after validation' hints at a specific point in the workflow but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'docx_compare_structure' or 'docx_list_revisions'. It lacks when-not-to-use instructions and does not mention prerequisites or recommended context.

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