word_read_document

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

There are no annotations, so the description must explain behavior. It only says 'read' and 'with anchors' but doesn't specify the return format, whether anchors are identifiers for paragraphs, or any limitations. It doesn't disclose output structure or error behavior.

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 short sentence that is immediately clear and free of filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, making it easy to scan. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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 absence of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'anchors' are, what the returned data looks like, or whether all paragraphs are read. For a simple read tool, more detail about the return value is expected.

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 already fully documents file_path as the absolute path to the .docx file, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. The mention of 'anchors' relates to output, not input parameters, so the description provides no extra value beyond the schema.

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 reads a Word document's paragraphs and mentions anchors, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that read other document parts like tables or headers. However, 'anchors' is not defined, and there's no explicit differentiation from similar read tools, so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool or how it compares to alternatives like word_get_document_info or word_read_table_structure. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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