word_list_images

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('List') and specifies the output fields (relationship id, target path, size), which helps the agent understand what to expect. It does not describe edge cases (e.g., no images found), but the core behavior is transparent.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then specifies the output fields. Every word adds value; there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

For a simple listing tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential return fields and the document type. It does not explain whether all image locations (body, headers, footers) are included, but given the tool's low complexity, the description is sufficiently complete for typical 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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'file_path' with description 'Absolute path to the .docx file'. The tool description adds only the general context of 'Word document', which aligns with the schema. Since the schema already fully documents the parameter, the description provides baseline value.

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 clear verb ('List') with a specific resource ('embedded images in a Word document') and names the returned data (relationship id, target path, size). This distinguishes it from siblings like word_read_document or word_get_document_info, which are broader in scope.

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 the tool is for inspecting images in a Word document, and no sibling tool appears to duplicate this functionality. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions (e.g., 'Use this instead of word_read_document for image-only listings'), so guidance is only inferred.

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