hwpx_photo_sheet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the dependency that the image is produced by hwpx_photos, but says nothing about the return format (path, URL, inline image), what happens if hwpx_photos has not been run, or whether the operation is a pure read.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the return value and followed by a usage cue in parentheses; nothing is padded. Slightly terse rather than wasteful.

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?

With no output schema, the description should characterize the returned artifact; it does say it returns an image, but omits return format and failure behavior for a tool whose sole purpose is producing a derived asset.

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 is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the folder path. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 (returns) and resource (the numbered photo-overview image produced by hwpx_photos), so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling hwpx_photos that generates the underlying data. It does not explicitly contrast with hwpx_preview or hwpx_read, but the resource is specific enough.

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 parenthetical "사진 내용을 파악할 때 사용" gives an implied when-to-use (inspecting photo contents), and the reference to hwpx_photos implies a prerequisite ordering. However, it names no alternatives and no explicit when-not condition, leaving the agent to infer the choice against hwpx_photos/hwpx_preview.

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