hwp_get_table_dimensions

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 states the tool returns values, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive or mention permissions. The description is adequate but could be more explicit about the read-only nature.

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, covering what is returned and the use case. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the main action. Excellent conciseness.

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 and lack of output schema, the description covers the purpose and context well. However, it could optionally describe the format of the returned dimensions (e.g., units) to be fully complete. Still, it adequately supports agent decision-making.

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 only parameter, table_index, is described in the schema with its type and role (0-based index). The tool description does not add further meaning beyond the schema description, which has 100% coverage. Baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the tool returns specific table properties (overall width, cell margins, outer margins) and specifies its use case (form analysis for accurate table reproduction). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hwp_get_table_format_summary or hwp_map_table_cells.

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 a clear context for use (form analysis) but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives. For a simple getter, this is sufficient and helps agents decide when to invoke it.

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