Content
87%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A tight, single-purpose API doc with executable code and a complete parameter table. Its one gap is the absence of any output verification for a batch extraction that writes files to disk.
Suggestions
Add a brief verification step after extraction, e.g. listing the generated subdirectory or reporting the count of images saved, so the batch write has an explicit checkpoint (this would lift workflow_clarity to 3).
Clarify in the parameter table what happens if img_path does not exist (auto-created vs. required) to remove ambiguity around the side-effecting subdirectory creation.
Note any failure behavior (e.g. what is returned or raised if the .docx has no images or is corrupted) to make the single action's error path actionable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean — a one-line description, a parameter table, and one code example — with no padding explaining what Word or docx is; every token earns its place per anchor 3. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides a fully executable Python import and call with a complete parameter table (types, required flags, descriptions) and a copy-paste usage example, matching the anchor 3 example. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The single call is unambiguous, but this batch/disk-writing operation (extracts all images and creates a subdirectory) lacks any verification step, which per the rubric caps workflow clarity at 2. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no external references needed, organized into clear labeled sections; per the rubric's simple-skill note, well-organized sections alone earn a 3, and no bundle files are missing. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |