extract_hwpx_xml

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions extracting specific files and hints at writing them to an extract_dir, but does not explicitly state side effects (e.g., whether the source file is modified), return value behavior (though an output schema exists), or failure modes. It provides useful context for reuse with build_hwpx but leaves some ambiguity.

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 two short paragraphs: the first states the core action in one sentence, and the second lists bullet-point use cases. Every line earns its place with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 covers the tool's purpose, use cases, and relationship to build_hwpx. Since the output schema exists, return values are not required in the description. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but the provided use cases are sufficient for a fairly simple extraction tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about how the extracted files are used (e.g., for build_hwpx) but does not provide additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already defines. It does not introduce new examples or edge-case syntax.

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 clearly states the tool's function: "Extract header.xml and section0.xml from an HWPX file." This is a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes itself from sibling tool extract_text_hwpx, which extracts text rather than raw XML.

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 explicitly says "Use this to get the raw XML from a reference HWPX so you can:" and lists three concrete use cases, which effectively tells the agent when to invoke this tool. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough.

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