hwp_create_gantt_chart

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions output ('■ 표시가 있는 일정표') but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing content, prerequisites like an open document, or potential errors). This is insufficient for a tool that modifies document content.

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 long, front-loads the purpose, and contains no extraneous 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?

Given the lack of output schema and the complexity of a Gantt chart (mapping months to columns), the description could explain more about the output structure and parameter mapping. It is adequate for a basic understanding but leaves questions about how to use start/end months and the resulting table layout.

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 parameter descriptions. The description adds only '작업 목록과 기간' (task list and period), which maps to the parameters but does not provide additional semantic context beyond the schema. 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 the tool creates a Gantt chart table automatically ('추진일정 간트차트 표를 자동 생성합니다'), which is a specific verb-resource pair. The name also reinforces this. However, it could be more explicit about distinguishing from generic table creation tools like hwp_table_create_from_data.

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 for creating schedule Gantt charts with task lists and periods, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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