build_docx

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'quality checks' but does not specify what they entail. It does not disclose whether the tool modifies input data or requires specific sections. Some transparency is provided (formatting, assembly), but gaps remain.

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?

Three sentences, each contributing essential information: purpose, formatting details, and quality assurance. No redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the main functionality but lacks details on quality checks, error handling, and required structure of the nested manuscript object. Given no output schema, more context on return values would be helpful.

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 meaning by clarifying that the manuscript parameter should include sections, figures, tables, and references. The schema has 50% coverage (describes manuscript parameter only), so the description compensates by specifying the expected contents. Output_filename is not elaborated but has a default.

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 explicitly states that the tool assembles all sections, figures, tables, and references into a final .docx manuscript, with specific APA formatting. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'write_section' or 'format_references_apa7'.

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 for final assembly but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use compared to alternatives. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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