hwp_business_plan_prepare

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a multi-step process (detect type, extract structure, parse tips, read references, return context) and notes it is non-destructive (prepares data for AI). It does not mention error cases or permissions, but the core behavior is well explained.

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 concise: one paragraph with a clear structure, using a bullet-like enumeration and minimal fluff. Every sentence adds information, and the version number is included without clutter.

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 complexity (multi-step analysis), the description lacks details about the output format (what 'AI context' entails) and error handling. Although it references the next tool, the agent may need more context on the return structure to use the result effectively.

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%, so both parameters are documented. The description adds value by explicitly stating reference_files is optional and explaining its role in section mapping, which goes beyond schema descriptions.

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 purpose: analyzing business plan templates to generate AI auto-writing context. It lists five explicit steps and distinguishes itself from the sibling hwp_korean_business_fill by noting that this tool prepares context for that subsequent fill step.

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 explains that this tool is a preparatory step before hwp_korean_business_fill, implying a sequential workflow. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or compare with alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer usage.

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