docx-to-markdown

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 the conversion action but lacks behavioral details such as whether it overwrites files, requires specific permissions, handles errors, or produces output location/format. For a file conversion tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 complexity of file conversion, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral aspects like output handling, error conditions, or dependencies, leaving gaps for an AI agent to correctly invoke the tool in context with siblings.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'filepath' fully documented in the schema as 'Absolute path of the DOCX file to convert'. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, as it only implies the parameter indirectly. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Convert a DOCX file to markdown' clearly states the action (convert) and resource (DOCX file) with the target format (markdown). It distinguishes from most siblings by specifying DOCX format, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other document converters like pptx-to-markdown or pdf-to-markdown beyond the file type mention.

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. With multiple sibling tools for converting different formats to markdown (e.g., pdf-to-markdown, pptx-to-markdown), there is no indication that this is specifically for DOCX files or any prerequisites like file accessibility or format compatibility.

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