get_hwp_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It lists returned metadata fields but does not mention side effects, authorization, or error conditions. Since 'get' suggests read-only, but not explicitly stated, transparency is adequate but not fully detailed.

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 with a front-loaded list of metadata fields. No unnecessary words; efficient and scannable.

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?

For a simple metadata retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description lists what is returned. However, it omits potential error cases, return format, or any prerequisites. Sibling tools are many but purpose is clear enough. Slightly incomplete due to missing output format details.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description only restates the parameter name ('Args: file_path') without adding format, constraints, or examples. This provides minimal added value beyond the schema itself, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 retrieves document metadata and lists specific fields (version, page count, etc.), using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('document metadata'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like read_hwp or read_hwp_text by focusing on metadata rather than content.

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 obtaining metadata without providing explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, it lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' or alternative tool references, which slightly reduces score.

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