validate_hwpx

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It mentions checking integrity but does not disclose error handling, side effects, or return behavior beyond cryptic 'ok mirrors valid'. Read/write nature is implicit.

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?

Two sentences, concise. However, 'ok mirrors valid' is unclear jargon that may confuse agents. Could be restructured for clarity.

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 an output schema, return values need not be described. The tool has one parameter and no annotations; description is minimal but covers the core action. Lacks detail on integrity definition and output format.

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 0% meaning no parameter descriptions. The tool description does not explain what 'path' refers to (e.g., file system path, HWPX file). The only parameter is minimally documented.

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 clearly states the verb 'Validate' and the resource 'HWPX package integrity', specifying sub-checks (zip layout, mimetype, XML declarations). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which perform validation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or what to do if validation fails.

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