hwp_extract_full_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what is returned (page setup, formatting, table dimensions) but does not mention whether the tool modifies document state, any prerequisites (e.g., document must be open), or performance implications. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. The first sentence clearly states the tool's function, and the second details outputs and a usage clue. Every word adds value, achieving conciseness without loss of clarity.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (page setup, text/paragraph formatting, table dimensions) and a usage context. It lacks details like error handling, document type restrictions, or performance notes, but it is largely complete for its simplicity.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description correctly implies no parameters are needed. Since no parameter details are required, a score of 4 is appropriate; no additional value from description is needed.

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 analyzes document style ('문서의 양식을 정밀 분석합니다') and lists specific outputs: page setup, text/paragraph formatting (19 properties), and table dimensions (up to 5). This sufficiently distinguishes it from siblings like hwp_extract_style_profile or hwp_analyze_document, which focus on different aspects.

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 explicitly says '양식 기반 문서 작성 전 반드시 호출하세요' (must call before writing a form-based document), providing a clear when-to-use directive. However, it does not mention when not to use or suggest alternatives, leaving room for improvement.

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