hwp_enumerate_nested_tables

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

The description discloses that the tool is read-only and uses recursive DFS to find nested tables. It mentions the output structure. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose potential performance implications for large documents, recursion limits, or error handling. Adequate but not thorough for a complex recursive 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?

Two sentences with no waste. Front-loaded with the main action. The version annotation '(v0.7.2.1 신규)' is slightly extraneous but does not harm. Efficient and to the point.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return type (NestedTableNode[]) and fields (path, rows, cols, children). However, it lacks details on error behavior, edge cases (empty documents), or performance notes. Given the complexity of nested traversal, slightly more context would improve completeness.

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 a single parameter file_path already described in schema. The description adds no additional meaning or usage details beyond the schema description. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when schema covers parameters adequately.

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?

Description clearly states the tool enumerates all tables including nested ones in HWPX documents as a tree structure, using DFS traversal. It explicitly mentions the output format (NestedTableNode[] with path, rows, cols, children). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hwp_get_tables which likely only list top-level tables.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many table-related siblings, it does not indicate prerequisites, when to avoid, or suggest other tools for simpler table queries. The description is purely functional without usage context.

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