inspect_document

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses paging mechanism (paragraphOffset/paragraphLimit), fidelity levels, and returned components including a drift-detection etag. Does not mention authorization or destructive behavior, which is acceptable for a read operation.

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?

Single sentence that front-loads the core purpose. While dense, it conveys all essential information without fluff. Could be slightly restructured for readability.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains return components and key usage options. However, it lacks details on error handling, etag usage for drift detection, and potential performance implications of different fidelity levels.

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 has 0% description coverage. The description explains fidelity (outline/structure/content) and paging parameters (paragraphOffset/paragraphLimit) but does not explain connectionId or documentId beyond being required. Adds value for 3 of 5 parameters.

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 tool inspects a Word document and lists the returned components. It distinguishes from siblings like find_in_document (search) and apply_plan (modification) through the verb 'inspect' and specific resources.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use (inspect document) and includes guidance on paging and fidelity control. Does not explicitly exclude use cases or mention alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for basic usage.

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