officecli_validate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It labels the tool as an 'auxiliary read', suggesting no destructive side effects, but fails to mention required dependencies, error behavior, or output format details. The description is insufficient for a mutation-capable tool without annotations.

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 concise, with two brief sentences. The first sentence is somewhat cryptic ('Optional OfficeCLI auxiliary read'), but the second clearly states the main action. No extraneous content.

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 tool has no output schema, no annotations, and many siblings, the description omits critical context: prerequisites (e.g., OfficeCLI), the nature of validation results, and return format. It does not adequately prepare an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The description provides no information about the two input parameters (docx_path and max_output_chars), despite 0% schema description coverage. The schema itself lacks descriptions, so the tool is entirely opaque regarding parameter semantics. The description must compensate but does not.

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 validates DOCX using OfficeCLI with JSON output, and positions it as auxiliary after Word AI validation. It distinguishes from sibling 'docx_validate' by noting the OfficeCLI backend, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other validation tools.

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 as a secondary validation step ('after Word AI validation') and as 'extra evidence', providing some context. However, it offers no explicit guidance on alternatives, when not to use, or prerequisites like OfficeCLI installation.

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