open_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool opens a document and loads basic metadata, but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what happens if the document doesn't exist, whether it locks the file, or what '기본 메타데이터' includes. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with file systems.

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 in Korean that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what '기본 메타데이터' entails or what the tool returns, which is critical for understanding its behavior. For a tool with potential file system interactions, more context on errors, permissions, or state changes is needed.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'path' documented as '워크스페이스 기준 문서 경로'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 action ('열고', '로드합니다') and resource ('HWPX 문서', '기본 메타데이터'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_metadata' or 'create_document', but the verb '열다' (open) suggests an initial access operation rather than creation or metadata retrieval alone.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify if this should be used before editing operations like 'insert_paragraph' or as a prerequisite for 'get_metadata', nor does it mention any prerequisites like needing an existing document.

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