word_get_page_layout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. The verb 'Read' implies a non-destructive operation, but the description does not disclose potential errors, file handling behavior, or side effects. It conveys safety but lacks rich behavioral context.

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 a single, focused sentence that directly states the tool's function. No filler or redundancy; it earns its place.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description sufficiently communicates what the tool reads: page size, orientation, and margins. However, it does not specify the return format or structure, but this is not strictly necessary for such a simple getter. The presence of sibling tools like word_set_page_layout provides helpful contrast.

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 coverage is 100%: the single parameter file_path is described as 'Absolute path to the .docx file'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb 'Read' and clearly identifies the resource: 'page size, orientation, and margins for a Word document'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like word_set_page_layout (which writes) and word_get_document_info (which covers broader document info).

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 context (when you need page layout details), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. For a simple read operation, the implied usage is clear, but no direct comparison to siblings like word_set_page_layout is provided.

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