Parse DOCX File

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

The annotations already convey non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a small behavioral detail by stating the output is 'text chunks,' which hints at the chunking process. However, it does not disclose other potential behaviors such as S3 integration, side effects, or error handling, leaving the agent with limited insight beyond the annotations.

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 a single, focused sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded, clearly stating the primary action and the file type. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has 10 parameters and no output schema, so the description should provide a high-level context for how the tool fits together. It clarifies the core purpose and output ('text chunks'), but it omits mention of alternative input sources (S3 vs. base64), default behaviors, or what the actual return structure looks like. The schema covers parameter details, so the description is minimally acceptable but not rich.

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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for all 10 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, as it never references parameters like chunk_size, s3_key, or file_content_base64. The schema does all the heavy lifting here.

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 uses a specific verb ('Parse') and resource ('DOCX (Word) file') with a clear outcome ('into text chunks'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that parse other file types (e.g., lyzr_parse_pdf, lyzr_parse_txt) by explicitly naming the DOCX format.

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 is appropriate when a DOCX file needs to be converted to text chunks, but it does not provide any exclusions or mention alternative tools. There is no explicit 'when to use this vs. others' guidance. The context is clear from the file type, but the description alone offers limited direction beyond that.

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