hwp_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly states the tool is 'side-effect-free, never launches Hangul', and explains that 'connected:false is the NORMAL idle state' with no attach attempted. This is sufficient transparency for a probe tool.

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 brief (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds essential information 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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, side-effect-free probe) and the presence of an output schema (context signals), the description covers the core behavior and output meaning adequately. However, it could have elaborated slightly more on the output schema fields if needed.

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?

There are no parameters (0 params, 100% schema coverage), so baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the output fields (connected, instances) and their meanings, which aids understanding beyond the empty 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 it is a 'Live COM availability probe' that is 'side-effect-free, never launches Hangul'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explaining that it does not attach or open documents, and instead advises to use open_in_hwp(path) for attaching.

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 explains when to use the tool (to check COM status) and when to use alternatives ('Attach by exact path first (open_in_hwp(path))'). It does not explicitly state exclusions but provides clear context.

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