export_docx

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

With no annotations, the description partially discloses behavior: it specifies output format (docx) and default formatting. However, it omits details like whether it overwrites files, if it requires specific markdown input, or any authorization needs. Adequate but not thorough.

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 with no superfluous content. Front-loaded with the core conversion, followed by a clarifying note about HWP conversion. Every sentence is essential.

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 simplicity (markdown-to-docx with settings), the description covers the key output format and defaults. However, it lacks input requirements, error conditions, and differentiation from siblings. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description should explain parameters. It hints at body_pt and line_pct via defaults (11pt, 160%) but does not mention in_md, out_docx, or title by name or purpose. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 converts markdown to docx with specific formatting (Batang 11pt, 160% line spacing, both alignment, A4, 20mm margins), and notes that final HWP/HWPX should be converted from Hangul. It provides a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from unrelated sibling tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does without suggesting appropriate contexts, exclusions, or how it relates to sibling tools like verify_article or solve_case.

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