hwp_foreground_preview_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and clearly discloses two important traits: the tool cannot read the document and cannot verify selection state. It also implies the preview is user-dependent. It does not explicitly state non-destructive behavior, but 'preview' plus its contrast with apply tools makes that reasonably clear.

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 short, purposeful sentences; the core operation is front-loaded and the caveat earns its place. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

For a narrow preview tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the target window, the action, and the critical user-confirmation requirement. The main holistic gap is the unexplained expected_revision parameter, which is already reflected in the parameter-semantics score.

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 explains 'text' and instructs when to set user_confirms_collapsed_caret, but says nothing about expected_revision, leaving a required parameter undefined for the agent.

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 ('Preview'), resource ('literal text'), and location ('user-confirmed caret in the selected window'). The phrase 'literal text' sets it apart from sibling preview/edit/insert tools without needing to open their schemas.

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 gives an explicit precondition: the user must confirm one collapsed caret rather than a selection, and it warns the mode cannot verify this itself. It does not enumerate alternative siblings or when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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