register_module

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'register' without mentioning side effects, persistence, whether registration is reversible, or what the operation does to the HWP COM environment. This is insufficient for an agent to predict the tool's 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 short and front-loaded, with no filler or repetition. The Args section is compact and aligns with the two parameters, though it could have used those lines to add more behavioral context.

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?

Because an output schema is present, the return value does not need explanation. However, with no annotations and no usage or behavioral context, this is not complete enough for an agent to know when or why to invoke it, especially given the large and varied sibling tool set.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds 'Module name to register' and 'Optional file path for the module,' which is slightly more than the schema's title-only 'Name' and 'Path,' but still leaves ambiguity about allowed path formats or meaningful value constraints.

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 uses a specific verb and resource, 'Register a module with HWP COM,' which states the tool's core action clearly. It is not a tautology and is distinct from all listed siblings, though it does not elaborate on what kind of module qualifies.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. Without context such as when module registration is needed or whether other tools should be used instead, the agent is left to infer usage entirely.

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