unpack_office_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's behavior (unpacking to a directory, pretty-printing XML) and purpose (inspection/editing), but lacks details on potential side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing files in the output directory), error handling, or performance considerations. It adds some value but is incomplete for a mutation 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 concise and well-structured with two sentences: the first states the action and output, and the second specifies the use case. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a tool with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage. It covers the purpose and basic behavior but lacks details on output format (e.g., directory structure), error cases, or integration with sibling tools. It's adequate but has clear gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('office_file' and 'output_dir') with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or constraints. Baseline 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 ('unpack'), resource ('Office document'), and scope ('.docx, .pptx, .xlsx'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'pack_office_document' (which does the reverse) and 'extract_text_inventory' (which extracts text rather than raw XML). It specifies the output format (pretty-printed XML files) and the purpose (inspect or manually edit raw XML structure).

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('to inspect or manually edit the raw XML structure'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. For example, it doesn't contrast with 'extract_text_inventory' for text extraction or 'validate_office_document' for validation, leaving some ambiguity in tool selection.

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