read_docx

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral details such as the max_chars truncation, the extraction of text/headings/tables, and the specific error conditions (PATH_NOT_FOUND, FILE_TOO_LARGE, etc.), which go beyond the annotations and provide valuable runtime expectations.

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 well-organized with clear sections (purpose, limitation, args, returns, raises) and is front-loaded with the core action. While slightly verbose, every sentence is informative and earns its place, making it concise for the amount of context provided.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description still explains the return structure (ReadDocxResponse with text, headings, tables) and enumerates all possible errors. Combined with the fully documented parameters and annotations, nothing essential is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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. The description repeats the parameter meanings (file_path: docx 파일 경로, max_chars: 본문 최대 글자 수) without adding new details, making this a baseline score.

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 states a specific verb ('추출한다') and resource ('Word(.docx) 문서의 본문 문단, 제목, 표'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_pdf and read_pptx by naming the exact file format. It also explicitly excludes .doc, making its scope unambiguous.

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 a clear usage context: it is for .docx files only, and specifically instructs the agent to convert .doc files before retrying. It does not compare against alternative readers, but the format-specific guidance is enough to direct correct usage.

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