validate_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 disclosing behavior. It transparently lists the validation steps (ZIP check, required files, mimetype content/position/compression, XML well-formedness), which gives a clear picture of what the tool will do. It does not state side effects or explicitly note it is read-only, but the nature of validation implies non-destructive behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence lists the checks in a compact, structured list. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or vague filler.

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 single-parameter validation tool, the description is largely complete. It states exactly what the tool checks and the expected input. The existence of an output schema likely covers return values, so the description does not need to explain them. Minor missing context: no mention of performance considerations or error handling, but these are not essential given the schema.

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 has one parameter (hwpx_path) with a description 'Absolute path to the .hwpx file to validate.' The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond this, and schema coverage is 100%. As per the rubric, when schema_description_coverage is high, a baseline of 3 applies, and there is no extra value from the description.

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 validates structural integrity of an HWPX file, with a specific verb ('validate') and resource (HWPX). It enumerates concrete checks (ZIP validity, required files, mimetype constraints, XML well-formedness), distinguishing it from sibling tools like build, extract, or analyze.

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 the tool should be used when one needs to verify the structural integrity of an HWPX file before further processing. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. Usage guidance is implied by the tool's purpose but not elaborated.

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