hwp_inspect_com_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions '개발용' (for development) indicating a read-only inspection context, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or detail any side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits.

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 with two short sentences that convey the purpose and usage context without any extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the main action.

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 has a simple parameter schema and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does. However, it could briefly mention the output format (e.g., list of property names) for 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% as the single parameter 'object' is fully described with an enum and description in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 dumps property lists of pyhwpx COM objects, specifying the action (dump) and resource (COM object properties). It distinguishes itself from siblings by its unique development purpose of inspecting exact property names.

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 implies the tool is for development use when checking exact property names like HCharShape/HParaShape. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but given the sibling tools, no other tool serves this inspection purpose, making context clear.

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