word_read

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the output is text content, but it does not explain how the tool determines which .docx file to read since no parameters are provided. This is a significant gap in transparency regarding invocation and potential limitations.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential information without any fluff or repetition. 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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and no parameters, the description should provide more context about how the file is specified and what exactly is returned. The description only says 'text content' but omits critical operational details, leaving the agent without enough information to use the tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the baseline for 0 params, the description need not explain parameters. However, the description does not clarify the implicit mechanism for selecting the file, which is a minor gap, but the baseline applies.

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's function: 'Reads text content from a Word document (.docx file).' The verb 'Reads' and the resource 'Word document (.docx file)' are specific, and it is easily distinguished from siblings like word_append and word_create which modify or create 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?

The description implies the tool is for retrieving text from .docx files, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like pdf_read or file_read, nor does it mention any exclusions or context such as local file paths or integration with other tools. Usage is inferred rather than explicitly guided.

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