hwp_draw_line

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only states it draws a line and lists attributes but does not mention any behavioral traits such as where the line is drawn, potential side effects, or requirements (e.g., cursor position). This lack of transparency is a gap for a mutation 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 very concise with three short sentences, no filler, and the key information is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary detail.

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 lists parameter attributes and compares to a sibling, but it omits important context such as where the line is drawn (e.g., at cursor or in selected area) and behavior when no parameters are provided. Given the low complexity and presence of schema descriptions, the completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds no extra semantic information beyond what is in the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 action (draw a line) and the customizable attributes (thickness, color, style). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool hwp_insert_line by noting more detailed control, making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 context by comparing with hwp_insert_line, suggesting this tool is for more detailed control. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites, which could be clearer.

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