get_document_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists return values but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, performance implications, error conditions (e.g., file not found, unsupported format), or any side effects.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, and lists the specific statistics concisely with no wasted 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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a fairly complete list of return values for a stats tool. However, it could mention edge cases (e.g., file not found, unsupported .docx variants) or performance notes for large documents.

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 100% and the parameter description ('Path to the .docx file to analyze') is clear. The description adds value by explicitly stating the file type (.docx) and implying the file must exist, going beyond the schema's generic description.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('statistics for a .docx document'), and lists specific metrics (word count, character count, page count, sections, tables), making the purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'read_document' or 'merge_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 usage for obtaining document statistics but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any when-not-to-use guidance or mention of prerequisites.

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