word_read

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

With no annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as what happens if the document is not found, whether the tool is read-only, or any rate limits. The brief description does not compensate for missing annotations.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it could be more informative without losing conciseness, such as specifying that the tool reads the currently active document.

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 and no parameters, the description is the sole source of information. It lacks details about the output format, document selection, and error handling, making it incomplete for a tool that likely requires implicit context.

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?

Although the input schema has no parameters, the description does not explain how the tool selects which Word document to read. This is a critical omission, as the parameter semantics dimension requires the description to clarify implicit behavior when schema coverage is high.

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 content from a Word document, distinguishing it from write operations like word_create and word_append. However, it does not specify how the document is identified, leaving ambiguity about which document is read.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pdf_read or excel_read. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for using the tool, relying solely on the tool name.

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