hwp_template_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns a list and works without the HWP program, implying a safe read operation. However, it omits details on error handling, permission requirements, or whether the list is cached. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides key details: template count, categories, and environment requirement. It lacks the format of the returned list, but is otherwise complete enough for a straightforward 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with the parameter category already described in the schema. The description reiterates the category options ('공문서, 기업, 학술, 개인') but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 tool 'returns a list of 22 available document templates' and specifies filtering by category (public, corporate, academic, personal). It effectively communicates the core purpose and distinguishes from sibling tools like hwp_template_generate, though it could explicitly differentiate from hwp_template_library.

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 only mentions that it works without the HWP program, but does not provide when to use this tool versus alternatives like hwp_template_generate or hwp_template_library. No when-not or explicit context for usage is given.

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