hwp_reference_policy

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and behavioral traits. It mentions saving to a config file and lists stored keys, but does not explain the effect of set (overwrite/merge), reset behavior, file existence requirements, or error handling. The persistence side effect is disclosed, but incompletely.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the tool identity and purpose. The version and file path are included, but the structure could be improved by separating metadata from usage details.

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 that there is no output schema and the tool is a meta-tool, the description should explain what each mode returns or does. It omits output behavior (e.g., get returns current policy, reset reverts to defaults). It is adequate for basic understanding but lacks detail on workflow integration.

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 context that the tool saves to a config file and lists some keys, but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's property descriptions (which already include version notes and defaults). The addition is marginal.

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 it is a meta tool for reference material policy, specifies the config file and keys it manages, and lists three modes (get/set/reset). This distinguishes it from the many sibling tools focused on document editing or 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 implies usage for managing reference policies, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like hwp_read_reference or hwp_auto_map_reference. No guidance on prerequisites or context is provided.

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