HWP 레이아웃 가이드 (분량 진단·단축키·가독성)

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

Without annotations, the description discloses estimation uncertainty (1100-1600 characters per page, actual may differ) and partial output when character count is missing. It does not indicate any destructive behavior, but lacks clarity on side effects or authentication needs.

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 two sentences long and front-loads the main purpose. The first sentence is slightly dense with multiple items, but overall efficient and without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for return values (suggestions, shortcuts, principles) and clarifies partial output. It covers the three parameters adequately and addresses estimation accuracy.

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?

The input schema already describes all parameters with full coverage (100%). The description adds no new semantic details beyond what the schema covers, so 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 the tool diagnoses page volume for HWP business plans, provides adjustment suggestions, shortcut tables, and readability principles. It specifies the resource (HWP plan) and action (diagnose, provide), distinguishing it from siblings like assemble_plan or build_roadmap.

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 HWP document formatting and volume assessment, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use. No alternative tools are mentioned.

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