hwp_indent

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 adds value by likening the effect to Shift+Tab and mentioning the official document context. However, it does not disclose potential side effects or prerequisites, though for a simple indent operation, this is likely sufficient.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the main action and efficiently include a key usage context. No unnecessary words.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the action and gives a practical use case. It does not mention edge cases like empty cursor position, but the brevity is reasonable given the tool's simplicity.

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% with a clear description for the 'depth' parameter (indent depth in pt, default 10). The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema, so a 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?

Description clearly states the tool indents the current paragraph (verb 'indent', resource 'paragraph at cursor'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool hwp_outdent by mentioning the Shift+Tab effect and its specific use in official document numbering for sub-items.

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 specifies a clear use case: indenting sub-items in the official document numbering system. While it does not explicitly list when not to use or name alternatives, the sibling hwp_outdent provides a natural contrast, and the context is specific enough to guide selection.

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