get_material_outline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it discloses that output is counts plus per-section first sentences and that '읽기 제한' (reading restrictions) may apply, which signals partial content access. It does not, however, explain why a 'get' preview is annotated as non-read-only/non-idempotent, leaving a mild tension unaddressed.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the distinguishing 'not a summary' qualifier. No filler, though the second sentence could be merged or trimmed.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must cover returns; it does say what is returned (page/slide counts, first sentence per section, read restrictions) but not the response shape, ordering, or how the paging parameters affect results. Adequate but with clear gaps for a four-parameter tool with zero schema documentation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across four parameters, so the description carries the burden. It mentions '각 구간' (each section), which loosely hints at the limit/offset paging model, but it never explains limit, offset, fileId, or the prefixed id pattern, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('자료의 페이지·슬라이드 수, 각 구간의 첫 문장과 읽기 제한을 확인합니다') and clarifies the nature of the output as raw preview rather than an auto-generated summary. It is distinguishable from sibling read/summary tools, though it never names a sibling to sharpen the boundary.

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 phrase '자동 생성된 요약이 아닌 원문 미리보기입니다' implies when to choose this over a summary route, which is useful implied guidance. However, no explicit when-to-use condition, prerequisite, or named alternative tool (e.g., get_material, read_material) is given.

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