Docx extras

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It communicates a read-only operation and specifically says it returns 'the real DocxExtras object' with listed parts. It doesn't cover edge cases like missing optional parts, but for a straightforward read extraction this is reasonable.

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 exactly two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and scope, the second clarifies the return type and value; even the explanatory rationale earns its place by differentiating from other tools.

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 lists all major data categories in the return object, which partially compensates for the absence of an output schema. The tool itself is simple (one parameter) and the description is sufficient for an agent to select it for extracting inaccessible docx subcomponents. Minor undocumented edge cases are acceptable here.

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 for the single parameter is 100%, with the schema already explaining source, path, bytesBase64, and format. The tool description adds no new param-specific semantic value, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate because 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Reads a docx's own comments, footnotes, headers, footers, and numbering definitions.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from ordinary document readers by explaining that the ContentDocument pivot cannot carry this data, so sibling tools won't expose it.

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 when to choose this tool: when comments/footnotes/headers/footers/numbering are needed, because ordinary document-reading tools cannot see them. It lacks an explicit sibling alternative or explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear.

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