analyze_hwpx

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates that the tool is read-only by stating it 'returns' the structure, and it enumerates the specific components returned. It does not mention potential errors or limitations, but for an analysis tool this level of transparency is adequate and does not contradict any annotations (none exist).

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, detailed output summary, and usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool is simple (one parameter), has an output schema (so return values need not be elaborated), and the description provides a comprehensive overview of what the analysis yields. The usage context for replication/editing workflows adds situational completeness.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameter (hwpx_path) with its own description: 'Absolute path to the .hwpx file to analyze.' The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('existing HWPX file') and clearly states the outcome: 'return its full structure.' It further details the structured output (font definitions, styles, page settings, body structure) which distinguishes it from sibling tools like extract_text_hwpx or extract_hwpx_xml that focus on isolated content extraction rather than full structural analysis.

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 final sentence 'Use this as the first step when the user provides a reference HWPX file for replication or editing' explicitly states when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use exclusions, though the sibling list suggests other tools for validation or conversion.

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