hwp_get_table_format_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool returns a format summary of sample cells and is for inspection purposes, implying it is read-only and non-destructive. However, it does not describe the output format, which cells are sampled, or any side effects. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 at two sentences, with the main purpose stated first. Every sentence adds value and there is no unnecessary information. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 presence of many sibling table tools, the description provides enough context to differentiate this tool. However, without an output schema, it fails to describe the return format, which is a gap for a tool that returns a 'summary'. It adequately covers the 'when' and 'what' but not the output structure.

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 describes both parameters completely (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 the format summary of the entire table, specifying the checked attributes (font/size/letter spacing/character width/line spacing). It explicitly says to use it for grasping formatting patterns before filling the table, which distinguishes it from siblings like hwp_get_cell_format that target individual 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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('before filling the table to grasp formatting patterns'). It implies the context of use but does not mention when not to use or alternative specific siblings. The guidance is clear and actionable, earning a 4.

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