hwp_list_controls

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that enumeration is via HeadCtrl traversal and includes page position, user description, and table info. It does not mention side effects, but for a read-only listing tool this is acceptable. The behavior is well explained.

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 a single paragraph with a clear front-loaded statement of purpose. It includes necessary details like CtrlID mappings. Could be slightly more concise, but overall efficient and well-structured.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (page position, user description, table info, CtrlID). It covers key aspects for a listing tool. No major gaps.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the CtrlID mapping and clarifying that 'all' is not supported but empty array or ['all'] works, and that filter default is a specific list. This goes beyond schema.

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 lists all controls in an open HWP/HWPX document, enumerates specific control types, and mentions HeadCtrl traversal. It distinguishes from sibling analyze_document by claiming to be lighter, making purpose very clear.

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 usage contexts by noting it is lighter than analyze_document, suggesting when to use this tool instead of a full analysis. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternative tools, giving clear but not exhaustive guidance.

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