officecli_view_html

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

Describes the tool as read-only ('Does not modify the DOCX'), which is critical behavioral info. However, lacks details on output characteristics, performance, side effects, or constraints like the meaning of 'bounded' or how input parameters affect behavior.

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?

Only two sentences but first sentence includes redundant phrasing ('Optional OfficeCLI auxiliary read') that could be omitted. The structure is front-loaded with the key action, but some words are wasted.

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 3 parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not specify output format, parameter effects, or usage nuances, making it incomplete for effective tool invocation.

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 adds no meaning to parameters (page, docx_path, max_output_chars). It does not explain their format, purpose, or constraints, leaving a significant gap.

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?

Description clearly states it renders a DOCX to an HTML snapshot for visual evidence and notes it does not modify the DOCX. However, the phrase 'Optional OfficeCLI auxiliary read' is somewhat vague and does not strongly differentiate from sibling tools like officecli_view_screenshot.

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 (e.g., officecli_view_screenshot). The term 'auxiliary read' weakly implies a supplementary role, but no clear context or exclusion criteria are provided.

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