hwpx_start_here

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the call yields (the usage order and rules of the toolset), which is exactly the behavioral information an orientation tool needs to convey. With zero parameters there is no mutation or auth risk to disclose, so the remaining gap is minor.

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 sentences with zero filler, and the directive (call first) is front-loaded ahead of the explanation of what it returns. Every clause earns its place.

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 parameterless, annotation-free orientation tool with no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: it is the first call and it returns ordering rules. It could be slightly richer by hinting at the sequence of the sibling tools, but nothing essential is missing.

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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing arguments that the empty schema does not support.

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 function: this is the entry-point tool that returns the toolset's usage order and rules. It is distinguishable from siblings like hwpx_format_guide because it frames itself as the mandatory first call rather than a topic-specific guide. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it lacks the sharper differentiation a 5 would need.

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?

"가장 먼저 호출" (call this first) is an explicit when-to-use directive that an agent can act on without inference. It does not, however, say when NOT to call it or how it relates to the other nine tools beyond ordering.

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