com_word_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects and safety. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and 'No file_path needed,' and it explains the meaning of each interactive_state value, including 'blocked if a long operation is running.' This gives the agent a clear behavioral model without needing 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 compact yet information-dense: purpose, state values, per-document details, usage guidance, parameter clarification, and read-only safety are all included in a few sentences. The most important identification and usage information is front-loaded.

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 a zero-parameter input schema and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what the tool checks, what the state values mean, when to use it, and that it is non-destructive. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is little for the description to add. It still proactively clarifies 'No file_path needed,' which prevents an agent from assuming a required file-path argument based on sibling tools. This is useful semantic guidance beyond the empty schema.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Check whether Word is running and what state it is in.' It then enumerates the exact state values (ready, busy, blocked, not_running) and the per-document information returned, which makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from document-editing siblings.

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 explicitly says 'Use before live editing to confirm Word is responsive, or to discover which files are locked,' which gives concrete, actionable usage context. It does not state exclusions or name specific alternative tools, so it falls just short of the highest bar.

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