com_validate_opens_clean

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden, and it discloses the key operation: opening the file in an invisible Word instance and reporting clean/fail. It also signals isolation and read-oriented validation via 'invisible Word instance' and 'definitive corruption check'. It does not mention prerequisites like Word/COM availability or possible error conditions, but the core behavior is clear.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The primary behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds valuable sibling context without redundancy.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with one parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It provides the essential operation, the isolated execution model, and the relationship to closely related validators. It is slightly incomplete only in not giving explicit conditionals for choosing this over validate_document or diagnose_document.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not meaningfully document the file_path parameter beyond saying 'open the file.' It does not explain expected path format, whether the file must already exist, or what file types are supported. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states a specific action ('Run the definitive corruption check'), a concrete resource ('open the file in an invisible Word instance'), and an explicit outcome ('report clean/fail'). It also distinguishes itself from closely related siblings by calling itself the 'Word-verdict companion to validate_document / diagnose_document', so an agent can tell it apart from those alternatives.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is relevant: it is the Word-based or 'definitive' corruption check, positioned as a companion to validate_document and diagnose_document. It does not spell out explicit exclusion criteria or a precise decision tree, but naming the sibling tools and labeling this one as the 'Word verdict' is enough to guide selection.

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