extract_hwp_text

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

The only behavioral trait disclosed is that it returns available:false until a non-COM reader is available. No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, but it fails to describe side effects, output format, or error behavior.

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 sentence, which is efficient in length, but its cryptic phrasing ('gate', 'lands') wastes the short space. It could be clearer without adding length.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential context about the tool's current state (unavailable), what the output will contain, and any usage constraints. It feels incomplete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the 'path' parameter, and the tool description provides no additional meaning about what path refers to (e.g., file path, URL, etc.). This is a critical gap.

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 'text extraction' for .hwp files, which clarifies the resource and action. However, the 'gate' and 'returns available:false' caveat muddles whether the tool is currently functional, reducing clarity.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'extract_text'. The description does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or appropriate contexts.

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