LibreOffice MCP Tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It effectively communicates key behavioral traits: it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get'), describes what information is returned for different document types, and mentions the 'token-efficient' performance characteristic. However, it doesn't address potential limitations like document size constraints or error conditions.

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 perfectly structured with a clear opening statement followed by bullet points for different document types and a concluding usage guideline. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides excellent context about what information is returned for different document types and clear usage guidance. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit mention about return format or potential error cases, but overall it's highly complete for its complexity level.

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 schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'docId', which is adequately described in the schema. The tool description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide extra value.

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 clearly states the specific verb ('Get') and resource ('structural outline of a document'), with explicit details about what this entails for different document types (Writer, Calc, Impress). It distinguishes from siblings like document_read_text by focusing on structure rather than content.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('always call this before document_read_text to understand structure'), making it clear this is a prerequisite step for efficient content reading. It distinguishes from document_read_text by explaining the token-efficiency rationale.

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