hwp_foreground_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states the operation does not touch Hancom, which is a valuable side-effect guarantee for an agent deciding whether to invoke it. It does not detail what exactly the state contains, but the existence of an output schema partially covers the return format.

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 a single, tight sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the critical non-mutating qualifier. Every word earns its place, with 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 zero-parameter status tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the operation's purpose and its key safety property. It could be slightly more explicit about what 'experimental foreground-typing session state' means, but the sibling context and output schema provide enough grounding for an agent.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is fully covered (100%), so there is nothing meaningful for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.

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 ('Show') and names the exact resource ('experimental foreground-typing session state'), clearly distinguishing this status check from the more general hwp_status sibling. It also adds the important qualifier 'without touching Hancom,' which reinforces the non-invasive nature of the operation.

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?

The phrase 'without touching Hancom' implies this is a safe, side-effect-free inspection tool, giving the agent a clear reason to prefer it when only status information is needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the sibling list suggests hwp_status may serve a broader purpose.

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