word_get_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and meets it thoroughly. It describes the return structure, parameter constraints, and all three error cases (ERR_FILE_NOT_FOUND, ERR_UNSUPPORTED_FMT, ERR_INVALID_PARAMS). No contradictions.

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 well-structured with a header line and bullet points for the return dict, an Args section, and a Raises section. It is appropriately concise for the detail provided, though some redundancy (e.g., listing fields in text and then in bullet list) could be trimmed.

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's moderate complexity (two parameters, enumerated return fields, multiple error types), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameters with semantics, return structure, and error conditions. An output schema exists, but the description still adds value by interpreting the schema's meaning.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides detailed semantic meaning: 'path: Path to an existing .docx', 'folder: Optional base folder for relative paths'. This adds significant value beyond the schema's bare type information.

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 action ('Return counts and core properties') and the resource ('.docx file'). It also lists the specific fields returned, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_document_info' and 'excel_get_info'.

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 explains what the tool does and its parameters, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other info tools or search_text). Usage is implied but not contextualized among siblings.

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