hwp_compare_documents

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions 'compares text and returns differences' but does not disclose if it modifies documents, requires permissions, or has side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit, leaving a gap for the agent.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It communicates the core functionality without any fluff or redundant information. Every word serves a purpose.

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 tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain the format of the returned differences (e.g., unified diff, list of changes). It lacks details on handling large files, error conditions, or performance implications. For a comparison tool, this is incomplete.

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%, and both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. No extra context like accepted file formats or path formats is given.

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 compares the text of two HWP documents and returns differences. The verb 'compare' and resource 'two HWP documents' are specific, distinguishing it from siblings like hwp_compare_with_template or hwp_get_document_text. No ambiguity.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or context such as whether documents need to be open. Sibling tools exist for similar purposes (e.g., hwp_compare_with_template, hwp_get_document_text), but no differentiation is provided.

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