hwp_template_library

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It partially covers storage location and version, but omits critical behavioral traits: delete is irreversible, register may overwrite, search behavior, or error conditions. The description does not warn about consequences or permissions needed.

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 main sentences. The first identifies the purpose, the second adds version and storage info, and the third clarifies the alternative for built-in templates. However, the phrasing is slightly cluttered (e.g., periods within sentences). Still, it is front-loaded and efficient.

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 complexity (5 modes, nested object for register), the description is incomplete. It omits return value information (e.g., list returns an array, get returns a template object) and error handling. For a tool with delete mode, safety notes are missing. No output schema is provided, so the description should compensate.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond listing the modes; it does not clarify the format or constraints of parameters like 'query' or 'template_id'. Baseline 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 '문서 템플릿 라이브러리' (document template library) and lists the modes (list, get, register, delete, search). It distinguishes from the sibling tool hwp_template_list by noting that built-in templates should use that tool. The verb-resource combination is specific and complete.

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 includes a key usage hint: '빌트인 35개 템플릿은 기존 hwp_template_list 도구 사용' (use the existing hwp_template_list for built-in templates). This tells when not to use this tool and points to an alternative. However, there is no explicit guidance for when to use each mode beyond the mode enumeration.

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