hwpx_photos

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that numbered overview images are produced but never says whether files are written to disk, where, or whether the operation is read-only or has side effects – a meaningful gap for a tool that appears to generate image artifacts.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource first and the return shape second; nothing is wasted. Slightly dense with a colon clause, but appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 must carry the return contract, and it does so only in outline (time-sorted list plus numbered image paths). Combined with the missing side-effect disclosure, it is minimally complete for a 1-parameter tool but not fully reassuring.

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 100% for the single 'folder' parameter ('사진 폴더 또는 파일 경로'), so the schema already does the documentation. The description confirms the folder-or-file duality but adds no format or path-convention detail beyond that.

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 states a specific verb (살펴본다), resource (사진 폴더 또는 파일), and even the shape of the result (촬영 시각 순 목록, 번호가 붙은 한눈에 보기 이미지 경로). This is enough for an agent to distinguish it from generic read tools. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the closely related hwpx_photo_sheet sibling.

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?

Usage is only implied – an agent can infer 'call this when you want an overview of photos in a folder,' but no when/when-not conditions or alternatives (e.g., hwpx_photo_sheet, hwpx_preview) are named. Adequate but leaves routing to the agent.

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