hwp_analyze_writing_patterns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions reuse of other tools (90%) and output usage, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, latency, or other side effects. For a learning/analysis tool, the description is insufficient.

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 two sentences: first states purpose, second gives implementation details and downstream usage. It is reasonably concise, though the implementation detail (reuse percentage) could be removed for brevity.

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?

The description covers what the tool does and its output usage, but lacks details about return value format (no output schema). Given the single parameter and simple nature, it is adequate but could be more complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter (file_path) described simply as '양식 파일 경로' (form file path). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it learns formatting patterns (font, line spacing, indentation, numbering system) from a form file. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it reuses extract_full_profile, extract_style_profile, and get_table_format_summary, indicating it is a higher-level analysis tool.

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 description implies usage as a prerequisite for hwp_extend_section and hwp_apply_style_profile, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings or provide when-not/alternatives.

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