hwp_extract_template_structure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It reveals internal heuristics (regex patterns) and reuse of other functions, offering moderate behavioral insight. However, it does not disclose safety or side effects (though it is likely read-only), nor does it describe any performance implications.

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 concise with two sentences. The first states the core functionality, and the second adds technical context. Although the regex patterns could be simplified for an AI agent, it is efficiently structured.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain the return format, but it does not. It also fails to mention performance considerations or how the output relates to sibling tools like hwp_get_document_info. Key aspects of the tool's use are missing.

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 does not add any information about the parameters beyond what the schema provides. The mention of heading depth is tangentially related to max_depth but does not elaborate.

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 that the tool extracts tree structure (toc/sections/tables/fields) from a form document and identifies it as the entry point for user form analysis. This is specific and differentiates from many sibling tools, though it could explicitly contrast with similar tools like hwp_generate_toc.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions it is the 'entry point for user form analysis' but does not specify when not to use it or suggest other tools for different scenarios.

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