hwp_read_context

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the read-only behavior and the expected output ('text' and 'revision'). It does not cover error cases like when no document is open, but for a simple 0-parameter read operation this is adequate.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then states the return value. There is no wasted wording or irrelevant detail.

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 0-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is complete: it identifies the exact source ('current unsaved document'), the operation ('read text'), and the result ('return its revision'). No additional information is needed to invoke it correctly.

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 schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description correctly focuses on behavior instead of inventing parameter details.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it reads text from HWP Live's current unsaved document and returns its revision. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like hwp_status or hwp_foreground_preview_text by targeting the current unsaved document context.

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 'current unsaved document' gives clear context for when to use this tool: when the agent needs the text of the active unsaved HWP Live document. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended usage is unmistakable.

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