read_document

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the output format (JSON array with index, style, text) and how text is computed (after accepting all revisions). It does not mention permissions or side effects, but for a read tool this is sufficient.

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, each serves a purpose: first states action, second gives constraint, third describes output and usage. No unnecessary words.

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 the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately explains the return structure. It also ties to sibling tools by noting the prerequisite relationship. For a read tool with one parameter, this is 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds that 'path must be absolute path', which is crucial beyond the type 'string'. Also it implies that the path points to a .docx file.

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 'Read all paragraphs of a Word document (.docx)', specifying the verb (read) and resource (document paragraphs). It distinguishes from sibling editing tools by saying 'must read before editing', establishing it as a prerequisite.

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 explicitly says 'Must read the document before editing', providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the implication that it's for reading before editing is strong.

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