read_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the requirement for allow_file_read in config, plus the behavior of returning non-empty paragraphs with indices and a word count. This enriches the agent's understanding of permissions and output.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and resource, the second describes return values and permission. Every word earns its place.

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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and a straightforward read operation, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, return format, and required permission. No gaps remain for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100% for the single 'path' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meanings beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., it repeats the file types but does not elaborate on path format, errors, or edge cases).

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 paragraphs from Word (.docx) or plain text (.txt, .md) files, and lists the return values (paragraph indices and word count). This specific verb and resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like read_pdf, read_file, and read_spreadsheet.

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 provides clear context about applicable file types and the allow_file_read prerequisite, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. Given the sibling set, the file-type restriction effectively guides selection, so this is solid but not fully explicit.

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