inspect_wxapkg

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It implies a read-only inspection but does not disclose what exactly is checked (e.g., file format, header bytes) or any side effects.

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?

Single sentence, 14 words, very concise. No fluff. However, it could be structured to front-load the most critical info (verb+resource) which it does.

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 no annotations, low schema coverage, and a single parameter, the description is too brief. It does not explain what 'report' means or cover error cases, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 has 1 parameter 'path' with 0% description coverage. The description only says 'local wxapkg file' which hints at the parameter but adds no format, validity, or usage details.

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 specific verb 'Inspect' and resource 'local wxapkg file' and purpose 'report whether it is encrypted or extractable'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform decryption or extraction.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like decrypt_wxapkg or extract_wxapkg. The description only states what it does, not when to prefer it.

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