docx_extract

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that the tool is 'bounded' and 'truncation is marked', which discloses important behavioral traits about output limits beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions are present.

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?

Two sentences, perfectly front-loaded with the core action and key details. Every word earns its place, and no filler is present. The structure ('Extract a DOCX...' followed by additional context) is optimal for agent scanning.

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?

The description covers the main functionality and a key behavioral aspect (bounded, truncation marked), but lacks details about the output format beyond 'markdown', and does not explain what 'bounded' means quantitatively. Given the tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but could be slightly more complete (e.g., specifying output is a string).

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 input schema has a single required parameter 'path' with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, leaving the agent with no explanation of what the parameter expects or its format. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 verb 'extract' and the resource 'DOCX', specifies the extraction yields structured output (headings as markdown, paragraphs, tables as markdown tables) in document order, and distinguishes it from siblings like pdf_extract_text or pptx_extract by focusing on DOCX with structure preservation.

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 when to use: when structured extraction from a DOCX with headings and tables is needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context of sibling tools provides implicit differentiation. A direct indication of alternatives would elevate this to a 5.

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