hwp_get_page_setup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'reads' (read-only) and returns specific fields, but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., document must be open), side effects, error conditions, or performance implications. The description adds value by listing return fields, but falls short of full 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 a single sentence that contains all necessary information: the action (reads page setup), the scope (current document), and the return fields. Every word is meaningful, with no redundancy or 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?

Given no output schema, the description effectively explains the return value by listing all fields. It covers what the tool provides without missing critical information. However, it could be more structured (e.g., specifying data types) or include error handling context, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a simple read operation.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). According to guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, so this score is appropriate.

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 reads page setup of the current document and lists all returned fields (paper size, orientation, margins, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'hwp_set_page_setup' which writes page setup, so the purpose is specific and 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 provides clear context that the tool reads the current document's page setup, implying use when page setup information is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., use hwp_set_page_setup for modification), but the read-only nature is clear from the verb 'reads'.

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