word_read

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only says 'reads text content' without disclosing behavior on formatting, images, tables, file size limits, error handling, or permissions. Minimal transparency for a read operation.

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?

Extremely concise, single sentence with no wasted words. However, could be slightly expanded to include file path specification (though no params) without harming clarity.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the basic purpose. Lacks details about return format (plain text? structured?), error cases (file not found, unreadable), and file source (local path vs ID). Adequate but not complete.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. Baseline is 4 per guidelines since there are no parameters to describe. The description adds nothing beyond the schema but isn't expected to.

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 it reads text content from a Word (.docx) file, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like word_append (write) and word_create (create), and other file read tools (pdf_read, excel_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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fs_read or pdf_read. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. Agent must infer usage from name alone.

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