office_read_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Read plain text' implies read-only behavior, but there is no statement about truncation when max_chars is exceeded, behavior on non-office files, permission requirements, or failure modes. This is a significant gap for an unannotated 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?

Two short lines, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the most important parameter example. Nothing is padded, though the format reads like an incomplete doc snippet rather than a finished description.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, with 0% parameter coverage, no annotations, and no usage guidance, the description leaves the agent guessing about max_chars semantics and about when to choose this over the other office_* read-adjacent tools.

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%, so the description must compensate. It documents 'path' with a concrete example (reports/plan.docx), which is genuinely useful, but 'max_chars' is never mentioned despite having a non-obvious default of 40000 and truncation implications.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('plain text from a workspace office document'), which clearly separates it from mutating siblings like office_replace_tool and office_append_tool. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the read-only framing makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is provided. An agent is left to infer that this is the read path versus office_list_tool or office_media_tool. The path example is the only usage aid offered.

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