validate_office_document

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 tool's behavior by listing what it checks and that it returns detailed error messages, which is useful. However, it lacks information on potential side effects (e.g., if it modifies files), performance aspects like rate limits, or error handling specifics, leaving some behavioral traits undisclosed for a validation 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core action ('Validate an unpacked Office document') and following with specific checks and outcomes. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it efficiently conveys the tool's functionality in two concise sentences, 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 the tool's moderate complexity (validation with multiple checks) and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and what is validated but lacks details on return values beyond 'detailed error messages'. It does not specify output format or examples, which could be helpful. With no annotations and incomplete output information, it is adequate but has clear gaps in providing a full context for effective use.

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 the schema already documents all parameters (unpacked_dir, original_file, verbose) with descriptions. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining why 'original_file' is needed for comparison or detailing the format of verbose output. Thus, it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating further.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('validate', 'checks') and resources ('unpacked Office document', 'XSD schemas'), and it distinguishes from siblings like 'unpack_office_document' or 'pack_office_document' by focusing on validation rather than file manipulation. It explicitly lists what is checked (XML well-formedness, namespace declarations, etc.), making the purpose highly specific and distinct.

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 implies usage by mentioning it validates 'an unpacked Office document', suggesting it should be used after unpacking (e.g., with 'unpack_office_document'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'apply_text_replacements' or provide exclusions. There is no clear guidance on prerequisites or scenarios where validation might be unnecessary, leaving usage context somewhat implied rather than explicit.

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