hwp_auto_map_reference

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden. It states that the tool generates data (non-destructive), but does not disclose whether it modifies the document, what the generated data looks like, error handling, or prerequisites. Insufficient for a mapping tool.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then steps and tips. No redundant or extraneous words.

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 explains the workflow but misses important details such as the output format (mapping results), error conditions, and prerequisites. Without an output schema, more context on return value is needed. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, such as providing defaults, examples, or constraints. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate due to high coverage.

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 tool's function: automatic matching of reference data headers with table labels to generate fill data. It specifies the source (Excel/CSV) and distinguishes itself from siblings like hwp_fill_table_cells and hwp_read_reference by outlining the workflow.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: after reading reference data with hwp_read_reference and before filling with hwp_fill_table_cells. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the workflow guidance is strong.

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