hwp_extract_guide_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it extracts structured content and implies it is a read-only operation (no modification mentioned), but does not describe the output format or any side effects. While adequate, more details on the structured output would improve transparency.

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 extremely concise with two sentences: one describing the extraction action and one for usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and scannable for an AI agent.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and when to use it. The mention of version and linking to sibling 'hwp_delete_guide_text' adds helpful context. Minor improvement could include what the structured output looks like, but it is largely complete.

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 and 100% schema coverage, so the description need not add parameter details. The tool acts on the current document context, which is implied. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description meets that 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?

The description clearly states the tool extracts structured content from the form's writing instruction box ('양식의 작성요령 박스 내용을 구조화 추출합니다'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'hwp_delete_guide_text' by advising to call before deletion, making its role and purpose unambiguous.

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 recommends calling before deletion to preserve requirements and suggests using the result as AI content generation context. This provides clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it, which is acceptable given the tool's specificity.

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