extract_text_hwpx

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, safety profile, output format variations (e.g., fmt parameter), or handling of tables (include_tables). The minimal phrase 'Extract plain text' implies a read operation but lacks explicit confirmation of non-destructive behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It immediately states the core purpose without redundant phrasing, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is too sparse to be contextually complete. It omits the existence of the fmt and include_tables parameters, and provides no usage context or alternatives. For a tool with three parameters and several siblings, more context is needed for an agent 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 input schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (hwpx_path, fmt, include_tables), with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; it neither enhances nor detracts from the schema.

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 identifies the action (extract) and the target (plain text content from an HWPX file), distinguishing it from sibling tools like extract_hwpx_xml (which extracts XML) and analyze_hwpx (analysis). The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description only states what the tool does; it does not indicate when to use it over alternatives, any exclusions, or prerequisites. The presence of sibling tools without reference leaves the agent without decision support.

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