hwp_install_deps

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

The description fully discloses behavioral traits: installation size (~700MB), time (up to 20 min), two modes with specific packages, force flag semantics, and version history. Given zero annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so comprehensively.

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 three sentences in Korean, front-loaded with the primary action, then expanding on modes and version context. Every sentence adds value without repetition, achieving high information density.

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?

With 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, modes, force flag, timeout, automatic behavior, and version history. No gaps remain for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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%, and the description enriches each parameter: mode maps to specific package sets (paddlepaddle/paddleocr), force explains sentinel behavior, and timeout_minutes is given defaults and bounds. This adds meaning beyond the schema's basic enum and integer descriptions.

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 purpose: installing Python dependencies for HWP. It specifies the resource (mcp-server/python/requirements.txt) and verb (설치합니다). Among a large set of sibling tools focused on document manipulation, this tool stands out as a setup utility, making its purpose distinct 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for OCR addition (mode:'all') or forced reinstall. It notes that since v0.7.4.7, core_only install auto-runs on first HWP call, so explicit invocation is optional except for those cases. This clearly delineates usage from the automatic behavior.

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