hwp_privacy_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions '자동 감지합니다' (automatically detects) but does not detail output format, detection limitations (e.g., non-text content), or behavior when no personal info is found. Some transparency but incomplete.

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 sentences: first states core functionality, second provides contextual use case. No filler, efficient, and front-loaded with key information.

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 single optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description sufficiently covers purpose and common usage scenario. It lacks specifics on output format or detection exactness, but overall adequate for guiding an agent.

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%; the parameter description explains the optional file_path and default behavior (scan current document). The description adds value by clarifying the tool's scanning purpose, but the schema already covers parameter meaning adequately, leading to baseline 3.

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 explicitly states tool detects personal information (주민번호, 전화번호, 이메일, 계좌번호 등) in document text and provides a specific use case (checking before public institution submission). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like hwp_text_search (general text search) and hwp_analyze_document (general analysis).

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 advises when to use (before document submission to public agencies) and implies not for other text search needs. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, though the context is reasonably clear.

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