hexvero_openRegister a local file or directory for static security analysis, returning a content-stable ID, size, hash, and detected format for later comparison.
Register a local file or directory for analysis. Returns its id, size, hash and detected format. Ids are stable per content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Absolute or relative path |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds substance by naming the returned fields (id, size, hash, detected format) and explaining that ids are content-stable, which makes the idempotency hint concrete. It omits failure behavior for missing or unreadable paths.
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?
Three short sentences, zero filler, with the action and its scope front-loaded before the return-value and id-stability details. Every sentence carries new information.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the response fields, and the content-stability note answers the natural 'what happens on re-open' question. Error cases and whether an existing registration is reused are left unstated, which is the only remaining gap for a one-parameter 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 a single required parameter already documented as 'Absolute or relative path'. The description adds only the hint that a directory is also acceptable, which is marginal value beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Register a local file or directory for analysis') and immediately says what it returns, so an agent knows this is the entry point that produces an id. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings such as hexvero_list or hexvero_close, but the open/close pairing is inferable from the names.
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?
Usage is only implied by the phrase 'for analysis' — an agent can guess that opening must precede hexvero_analyze, hexvero_strings, etc., but the description never states when to use this versus existing handles or what to do if the target is already open. No exclusions or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.