word_inspect_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds the scope of what is read (metadata, paragraphs, styles, tables), which is genuine added context. It omits any mention of truncation or size behavior for large documents, which matters for this tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and enumerated scope come first. Nothing is wasted or repeated from the schema.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what comes back, and the annotations carry the safety story. However, the undocumented maxParagraphs limit and the absence of any note on result shape or large-file behavior leave a meaningful gap for an agent inspecting a long document.

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 coverage is 50%: path is documented in the schema, but maxParagraphs has no description anywhere and the description never mentions it, even though its default of 200 implies silent truncation of paragraphs. The listed items (paragraphs, styles, tables) describe output content, not parameter meaning, so the description does not compensate for the 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?

Names a specific verb (inspect) and resource (DOCX document) and enumerates the inspected content: metadata, paragraphs, paragraph styles, tables. That is enough to separate it from word_create_document, word_append_paragraph, and word_replace_text, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the generic office_inspect_file sibling.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing hint against the many sibling inspectors (office_inspect_file, powerpoint_inspect_presentation, excel_inspect_workbook). Read-only usage is only inferable from the annotations and the verb 'inspect'.

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