preview_visitors_from_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the single most important trait: this is a non-mutating preview. It says nothing about permissions/auth, file size limits, or how malformed rows are handled, and the only structured signal is an output schema.

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 core behavior and the dry-run qualifier are front-loaded in a single compact sentence. The trailing keyword list is largely SEO filler that adds little, but it is short enough not to obscure the main statement.

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 output schema covers what a preview returns, and the description covers the non-mutating nature of the call. What is missing is any explanation of how the five default_* parameters are applied to file rows lacking those fields, which is essential context for interpreting a preview result on a 6-parameter tool.

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% and none of the six parameters carry schema descriptions. The description only implies file_path semantics via the listed file extensions; the five optional defaults (default_floor, participation, default_purpose, default_visit_date, default_visit_time) — which materially change preview output — are completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 (preview), resource (visitor list), and input source (file), plus the supported formats (.xlsx/.csv/.tsv). It also negates the sibling action ('does not actually register'), so an agent can separate it from register_visitors_from_file and preview_visitors_from_text without opening a schema.

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 '(실제 등록하지 않음)' gives clear context for when to reach for this tool: a dry run before committing a registration. It does not, however, explicitly name the alternative siblings (preview_visitors_from_text, register_visitors_from_file) or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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