hwpx_preview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does convey that the output is an image rather than text, which is the key behavioral fact. It omits the return encoding/format, whether multiple pages are returned, size limits, and any note that the operation is a harmless 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the primary action first and the usage hint second; nothing is wasted and there is no filler.

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 tool returns an image and has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should ideally state the return shape (e.g. image content/encoding) and confirm read-only behavior. It covers the essence but leaves those gaps for an agent that must handle the result.

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%, so dpi, page, and pdf_path are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g. default page, dpi effect) beyond that baseline.

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 concrete verb and output ('PDF 한 쪽을 이미지로 돌려준다') and adds the intent (visual verification), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. However, the tool name is hwpx_preview while the description talks only about PDF pages, and no sibling (e.g. hwpx_photos, hwpx_photo_sheet) is named to disambiguate.

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 '결과를 눈으로 확인할 때 사용' gives a usage context, which is more than nothing. But it offers no when-not guidance and never distinguishes this from the image-producing siblings hwpx_photos or hwpx_photo_sheet.

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