hwp_validate_consistency

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

The description discloses that the tool returns deviations and a 0-100 score, and mentions comparison with expected_profile (WritingPatterns). No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It lacks details on side effects, authentication, or rate limits, but for a read-only validation tool, this is adequate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and provides necessary details without extraneous words. Every sentence is informative and earns its place.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description adequately covers the return values (deviations and score) and usage timing. It could be more detailed about the format of deviations or prerequisites, but overall it is reasonably complete for a validation 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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds value by specifying that expected_profile refers to WritingPatterns and that omitting it results in a placeholder score of 100, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 states it validates document form consistency by comparing with an expected profile, returning deviations and a score. It is clear about the core function but does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like hwp_verify_layout or hwp_form_detect, leaving some ambiguity.

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 advises calling during or after writing to confirm compliance, which provides some usage guidance. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for different validation needs.

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