word_read_footnotes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool 'Reads' footnotes, indicating a safe, non-destructive operation. However, it does not disclose potential edge cases, return format, or the meaning of 'normal' footnotes, leaving ambiguity about exactly what is returned.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no fluff or redundant information, and every word adds value.

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 low complexity (one parameter, simple read operation) and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It clearly states the purpose and the input. However, without an output schema, it does not specify the return format, but this is a minor gap for such a straightforward read tool.

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 covers the single parameter `file_path` with a clear description ('Absolute path to the .docx file'), achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'all normal footnotes in a Word document'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like word_read_comments and word_read_document, which target different content types.

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 when footnotes are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no mention of when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough to infer appropriate use.

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