open_in_hwp

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it leaves the window open, saves and closes nothing, and cold start can take tens of seconds. It also explains timeout 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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the main action. It includes necessary details without being overly verbose, though it could be slightly more streamlined.

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?

The description provides key context such as workflow, cold start, and timeout handling. With an output schema present, return value explanation is less critical. Some details about parameters are missing, but overall it is fairly complete for the tool's complexity.

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 description explains the timeout_seconds parameter and its effect (isolated worker, unknown outcome), but does not explain the path or visible parameters beyond implying file type. Given 0% schema coverage, more parameter details would be beneficial.

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 opens a .hwp/.hwpx file in a controllable Hangul window. It distinguishes itself by mentioning that hand-opened windows are not safe anchors and that this tool should be used first for attaching by exact path.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: to attach by exact path before using apply_to_open_hwp or apply_small_live_label_cells. It also mentions cold start delays and timeout behavior, although it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool.

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