get_paragraph_format

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so thoroughly: it declares read-only behavior, Word's resolution order, per-property source reporting ('explicit' | 'paragraph_style' | 'document_defaults' | 'word_default'), line_spacing rule encoding, and the has_numbering caveat for unresolved numbering indents. This is far beyond basic expectations for a read tool.

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 long but densely packed, opening with the core purpose before explaining resolution behavior. Every sentence earns its place: property list, resolution order, source reporting, line_spacing special cases, the numbering caveat, and the write-tool counterpart all serve the agent's decision-making and invocation.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description appropriately focuses on non-obvious semantics rather than return shapes. It covers range semantics, inheritance resolution, source attribution, line-spacing units, and the numbering limitation, making the tool fully usable without external clarification.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds important parameter meaning: start..end is inclusive and end defaults to start. It does not individually explain file_path, but the schema already specifies its type and required status, and the omission is minor against the useful range semantics it does provide.

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?

States a specific verb 'Read' and resource 'EFFECTIVE paragraph formatting' with a precise paragraph range and an enumerated list of formatting properties. It distinguishes itself from set_paragraph_format as the read counterpart and from raw style tools by emphasizing resolution through the style basedOn chain and document defaults.

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 clearly frames when to use it via 'EFFECTIVE' formatting, distinguishing resolved values from raw style definitions, and points to set_paragraph_format as the write counterpart. It does not explicitly state 'use get_styles for raw styles instead' or list exclusions, but the intended selection context is clear.

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