hwp_estimate_workload

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the estimation formula, output structure (risk items, recommended actions), and that the user decides whether to proceed. It does not state side effects, but the tool is likely read-only. The detail is commendable.

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 paragraph that is both concise and informative, front-loading the purpose and then detailing inputs, outputs, and formula. Every sentence adds value; no waste.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description fully explains the return values (pages, tokens, time, risks, recommendations) and the underlying formula. It covers prerequisites and how the tool integrates into the workflow, leaving no gaps for a planning tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how parameters map to the estimation process (e.g., mode, file_path for form analysis, constraints), providing context beyond the schema descriptions. It clarifies the role of each input.

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 explicitly states the tool estimates workload for HWP writing tasks, detailing inputs and outputs (pages, tokens, time, risks, recommendations). It is distinct from all sibling tools, which are focused on editing, formatting, or reading documents.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for pre-writing workload estimation and that the user decides based on results. However, it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or compare with alternatives, though the unique purpose is evident from sibling context.

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