hwp_open_document

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

Without annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the automatic closure of existing documents, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it omits details such as whether the previous document is saved, error handling, or any limitations, leaving some uncertainty.

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 two sentences long with no extraneous words. The first sentence gives the primary purpose, and the second adds critical behavioral context and actionable guidance. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential action, automatic behavior, and next step. It could mention error conditions or path requirements, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a single-purpose open tool.

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 description does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter description. The schema already covers file_path with a clear description, and the tool description merely restates '지정된 경로의' (at the specified path). With 100% schema coverage, the baseline 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'open' and the resource 'HWP/HWPX file', with the specific action to prepare for editing. It distinguishes from sibling tools by positioning itself as a precursor to analysis and editing tools.

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 explains the auto-close behavior when a document is already open and advises using hwp_analyze_document after opening. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention prerequisites or alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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