read_document_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., for invalid paths or unsupported formats), performance aspects (e.g., large file handling), or output specifics (though an output schema exists). This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's operation beyond its core function.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another listing the parameter. It's front-loaded with the main action, though the parameter section is brief. There's no wasted text, making it efficient for a simple tool.

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) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks details on error cases, file format support, or integration with sibling tools, which could aid an agent in correct invocation. It meets basic needs but leaves room for improvement in contextual guidance.

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 description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It only repeats the parameter name 'path' without explaining format (e.g., absolute vs. relative), constraints, or examples. With one parameter and low schema coverage, the description provides basic context but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of detailed documentation.

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 verb 'extract' and resource 'text content from a LibreOffice document', making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'read_spreadsheet_data' by specifying document text extraction, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_document_info' or 'get_document_statistics'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_document_info' (which might include metadata) or 'read_spreadsheet_data' (for spreadsheet content). It lacks context about prerequisites, such as file accessibility or format support, offering only basic usage without exclusions or comparisons.

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