hwp_get_fields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states '조회합니다' (retrieves), implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, required permissions, or return behavior. Adequate for a simple read tool but lacks explicit assurances.

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 sentences long, front-loads the key action and resource, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description covers purpose and usage context. No output schema exists, so the return format is not described, but the tool name and context imply a list of fields. Minor gap for full 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, and the description adds no new meaning beyond the schema: both mention the optional file_path with '생략 시 현재 문서'. The description does not compensate or elaborate on parameter usage.

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 retrieves the list and current values of document fields (forms). The verb '조회' (retrieve) and resource are specific, and it differentiates from siblings like hwp_fill_fields by indicating it's for checking fields before filling.

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 states when to use the tool: '필드를 채우기 전에 어떤 필드가 있는지 확인할 때 사용하세요' (use it to check which fields exist before filling them). It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context effectively guides usage.

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