officecli_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description correctly identifies it as a read-only operation. However, it lacks details on response format, error behavior, or performance implications, leaving the agent with incomplete behavioral expectations.

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 brief (three short sentences) with no redundancy. It front-loads the key action and constraints. While efficient, it sacrifices detail that could aid clarity.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description fails to fully specify the tool's behavior. It doesn't mention the document type (implied .docx), does not describe the query syntax beyond 'CSS-like', and omits expected output structure.

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 the 'selector' is CSS-like and output is JSON, but does not clarify 'docx_path' or 'max_output_chars'. The agent is left guessing about the required document path and output limit.

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 for running CSS-like queries on Office documents, outputting JSON. It is distinct from the numerous docx_* siblings that target specific document parts or actions.

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 says 'Use only for inspection, never mutation' and labels it 'auxiliary', providing some usage context. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools or give conditions when to choose this over similar read tools.

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