read_document

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

The description states what is extracted and that it returns structured data, but with no annotations present, it does not disclose side effects (though likely read-only), error conditions (e.g., file not found), or permission requirements. It provides a basic overview but lacks depth.

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 concise with two sentences that immediately convey purpose and output. Every word adds value, no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and gives a high-level idea of return data. It lacks details on error handling or exact output structure, but for a read tool, it is reasonably 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?

The schema already describes the single parameter filePath with high coverage (100%). The description adds the word 'existing' which implies the file must exist, adding marginal value. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 and the description does not significantly improve understanding.

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 extracts text, paragraph list, headings, and metadata from a .docx file. The verb 'Extract' and resource 'existing .docx file' are specific, and the tool is easily distinguished from sibling tools like create_document or add_section which perform different operations.

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 (e.g., get_document_stats for statistics, or replace_text for editing). There is no mention of when not to use it or any prerequisites. The description implies usage for reading a .docx file but lacks explicit context.

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