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 of behavioral disclosure. It describes the read operation and efficiency characteristics, but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like error conditions (e.g., what happens with invalid indices), performance characteristics beyond token efficiency, or what format the returned content takes. It provides some useful context but leaves significant gaps.

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 concise with just two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides crucial comparative guidance. There's zero wasted text and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (range-based reading with document type variations), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the purpose and comparative usage well, but lacks details about return format, error handling, and specific behavioral characteristics that would be important for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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%, so all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema - it mentions paragraph/slide indexing but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter usage, constraints, or edge cases. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Read a specific range of a document'), identifies the resource (document), and specifies the mechanism (by paragraph index for Writer or slide index for Impress). It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'document_read_text' by mentioning token efficiency for specific sections.

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 ('when you only need a specific section') and when to use an alternative ('More token-efficient than document_read_text'). This directly addresses the sibling tool context and gives clear comparative usage advice.

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