hwp_smart_analyze

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It lists the analyses performed but omits whether the tool modifies the document, leaves it open, or requires special permissions. For a read-heavy analysis tool, stating it is read-only would improve transparency.

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 few sentences long, front-loading the purpose and then providing additional context about integration with sibling tools. It is efficient and directly informative, though slightly verbose with the list of analyses could be slightly more compact.

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 has one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of its capabilities but lacks details on the output format (e.g., structured text, JSON) or error conditions. For a complex combined tool, more specifics on the return value would improve completeness.

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?

There is only one parameter (file_path) with a brief description 'HWP/HWPX 파일 경로'. The schema already covers it fully (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional semantic depth beyond what the schema provides, justifying the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states it opens a document and performs multiple analyses (structure, type inference, format profile, completeness, recommendations) in one call. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like hwp_analyze_document, hwp_document_summary, and hwp_get_table_format_summary by explicitly noting it integrates them, making it a comprehensive first-step tool.

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 explicitly says '문서를 처음 다룰 때 이 도구 하나면 충분합니다' (when first dealing with a document, this tool alone is sufficient), providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for more specific needs, but the integration hint implies granular alternatives.

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