hwpx_doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only probe but never states whether it mutates anything, whether it can be slow or trigger engine installs, or what a successful versus failed diagnosis looks like.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence identifying the inspected components with zero filler. Nothing is repeated from the name or removable.

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?

For a zero-parameter diagnostic with no output schema, the description should at minimum say what the check reports (pass/fail per engine, install hints, remediation). It names the inspected targets but not the deliverable, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there are no parameter semantics to compensate for. The empty schema is consistent with a simple environment probe.

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?

States a specific verb (점검한다 / inspects) and a concrete resource (PDF conversion engines — Hangul/LibreOffice/built-in — plus Hangul automation status). An agent can tell it is a diagnostic tool rather than a conversion or build tool, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling.

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?

No guidance on when to run this check versus simply attempting a conversion, and no mention of prerequisites or expected failure conditions. The diagnostic intent is implied by '점검' but the agent gets no when/when-not signal relative to siblings like hwpx_convert_hwp or hwpx_build.

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