ingest_docx

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the conversion process, including support for .doc via LibreOffice, and provides the output directory structure. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., file overwriting), error handling, or performance considerations, but overall transparency is good.

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-structured with clear sections: purpose, capabilities, special features, output structure, and parameter/returns documentation. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence adds value, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity, the description covers the main aspects: input format, conversion process, output structure, and parameter details. It lacks information about error handling and the 'ctx' parameter, but an output schema exists to cover return types, making it sufficiently complete for most use cases.

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 has 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning to 'file_path' by specifying it as an absolute path, and describes the return summary. However, the optional 'ctx' parameter is completely undocumented, leaving a gap in parameter understanding.

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 ingests .docx/.doc files and converts them to DFM (Docx-Flavored Markdown), mentioning support for complex elements and legacy .doc format. It distinguishes from siblings like convert_document or get_docx_content by specifying the unique output format and processing pipeline.

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like 'convert_document' or 'ingest_documents'. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the purpose.

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