docx_validate

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 declares read-only behavior and notes the default backend fallback. However, it does not disclose specifics like error behavior, output format, or what constitutes a failure. The description adds some context but is not comprehensive.

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-loaded with 'Read-only.' It efficiently conveys the core purpose. However, it could benefit from a slightly structured format for readability.

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?

With no output schema and 12 parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not describe return values, how to interpret results, or handle failures. The context around typical use cases and integration with sibling tools is missing.

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 explain parameter meaning. It only generically mentions 'touched_*' parameters without detailing each. Parameters like engine, strict, and allow_* are not explained. Given 12 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 is read-only and validates structural invariants. It specifies the action (validate) and the resource (docx structural invariants). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on validation after edits.

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 implies usage after making edits by instructing to supply touched_* for intentional edits, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like docx_inspect or docx_health_check. No explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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