get_document_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the tool can either read or mutate summary metadata, but it does not disclose whether setting values replaces or merges existing metadata, what happens when values is null, or whether an open document is required. Permissions, side effects, and error conditions are also absent.

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 single compact sentence that front-loads the key resource and includes illustrative fields. It is appropriately brief, though the packed 'get or set' phrase slightly obscures the tool's conditional behavior.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the dual get/set behavior and the free-form values parameter require more explanation than the description provides. An agent cannot determine how to trigger a set operation, what valid keys look like, or what the null default means, leaving a significant gap for a state-changing tool with no annotations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only partially does so by listing possible summary fields ('title, author, subject, keywords'). It fails to explain the meaning of doc_id, the expected shape of the values object, or how values controls get versus set behavior.

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 states a specific verb pair ('get or set') and a specific resource ('document summary info') with example fields, making the tool's core purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as get_document_info or set_hwp_property, and the combined 'get or set' phrasing leaves some ambiguity about when each behavior applies.

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 is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_document_info or set_hwp_property. The description implies both reading and writing summary info but never explains how to choose between them or what conditions favor this tool. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool mentions.

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