tool_office_viewer

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'File' as input and 'Info' as output, offering no details on what processing occurs, what information is extracted, or any side effects. This is completely opaque.

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 extremely short, but the brevity stems from under-specification rather than refined conciseness. It lists parameters and outputs in a structured format, but every sentence is essentially a placeholder that fails to convey meaningful content.

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?

For a tool that likely handles complex office document formats, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no information on supported file formats, output structure, error handling, or security considerations. There is no output schema to compensate, and the input schema's nested 'file' object is not explained.

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 description merely repeats the schema property names ('file', 'info') without adding explanation. Worse, it labels 'info' as an output while the input schema includes it as a property, creating ambiguity about the actual input/output contract. The schema descriptions are minimal ('Info'), and the description does not clarify.

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 is essentially a title with 'Office Viewer' and a list of parameters/outputs, but lacks a clear verb-resource statement. It does not explain what 'viewing' an office file entails or differentiate itself from sibling tools like tool_exif_viewer or tool_json_preview.

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 vs alternatives. There is no mention of supported file types, prerequisites, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate.

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