info

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this is a safe, non-mutating read. The description adds value by enumerating what it reports (hash, paragraph count, part existence), which is the closest thing to a return-value contract given there is no output schema, but it omits format, cost, and whether it processes the file eagerly.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with a leading label and no wasted words. It is efficient, though the trailing phrase 'which parts exist' is cryptic enough that the terseness costs some precision.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does list the headline fields, which is adequate for a one-parameter read-only tool. It remains incomplete on the shape of 'properties' and 'which parts exist', and gives no hint about output structure.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100% ('Path to the .docx.'), so the schema fully documents the input. The description adds nothing about the parameter (e.g., relative vs absolute paths, file size limits), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 fragment 'File facts' names the resource and enumerates the contents (size, hash, paragraph count, properties, part existence), so the agent can infer it reads document metadata. However, there is no verb and no differentiation from clearly overlapping siblings such as stats, outline, or paragraphs_list, which also report document-level facts.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no indication of when to prefer this over stats or paragraphs_list. The agent must guess whether 'info' or 'stats' is the right entry point for document metadata.

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