hwp_verify_5stage

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the five verification stages, criteria for each, and the overall_pass logic. This gives the agent a thorough understanding of the tool's behavior, including optional stage 5 and pass/fail conditions.

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?

Description is a single coherent paragraph that front-loads the purpose and clearly enumerates stages. It is slightly verbose with version info but remains efficient and scannable.

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?

Description lacks information about the return value format (e.g., whether individual stage results are returned), prerequisites (e.g., whether the document must be open or if the tool handles opening/closing), and error handling. For a verification tool with no output schema, these gaps reduce 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining how parameters like expected_chars and expected_text_snippet are used in specific stages, and the business context (TEST_CHECKLIST Phase 19, version info).

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?

Description clearly states the tool evaluates documents according to a specific 5-stage verification criteria (TEST_CHECKLIST Phase 19) and lists the stages. It distinguishes from sibling tools like hwp_verify_layout by specifying the multi-stage checklist approach.

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?

Description indicates usage 'after creating a new document for automatic verification', providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for single-stage or layout-only verification.

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