officecli_view_issues

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 indicates a read operation ('read') and JSON output format, but does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether it is destructive. More context is needed.

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 short (one sentence) but contains filler words ('Optional,' 'auxiliary') that do not add value. It front-loads the read purpose but lacks structured organization. It is adequate but not optimally concise.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide enough context. It does not explain what 'issues' are, how parameters affect output, or what the JSON output looks like. The agent cannot reliably use this tool without additional knowledge.

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%, and the description adds no information about the four parameters (limit, docx_path, issue_type, max_output_chars). The agent must infer parameter usage from names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 states it is a read operation with JSON output for 'formatting/content/structure evidence,' implying it checks for issues in a document. However, it does not explicitly link to DOCX or clarify what 'issues' means, leaving ambiguity. Sister tools like 'docx_health_check' suggest a more precise purpose.

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?

Only describes itself as 'Optional OfficeCLI auxiliary read,' offering no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'docx_health_check' or 'officecli_validate.' No conditions or exclusions are provided.

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