read_document

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

Describes return format (paragraphs with indices, styles, formatting hints) and behavior of optional parameters. No annotations exist, so description carries the burden; it adequately discloses non-destructive, read-only nature.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words: first sets purpose and return format, second and third give essential usage tips. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple read tool with no output schema, the description covers main function, return format, and optional parameters' purpose. Could mention output format (e.g., JSON) but sufficient for an AI agent.

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 descriptions already cover 100% of parameters clearly. The description adds usage context (e.g., 'for large documents') beyond the schema, enhancing understanding of when to use optional 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 reads a DOCX file and returns structured paragraph data, distinguishing it from sibling tools that modify or manage documents.

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?

Explicitly advises using start_paragraph/end_paragraph for large documents and show_revisions for tracked changes, providing clear when-to-use guidance for optional parameters. Does not contrast with sibling read tools, but still helpful.

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