preview_visitors_from_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key trait of not registering ('등록 없이') and only returning parse/validation results, but it omits other behavioral details such as authentication, rate limits, or side effects beyond registration.

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 description is concise and front-loaded, with the main action and usage in two sentences. The appended keyword list adds noise without helping an agent invoke the tool, keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

Given 6 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and pre-registration usage, but leaves optional parameter semantics unexplained and does not clarify text format or relation to file-based preview tools.

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% for 6 parameters, so the description should compensate heavily. It only indicates that 'text' is the visitor list input; the five optional parameters (default_floor, participation, default_purpose, default_visit_date, default_visit_time) are not described at all.

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 (parse/validate) and resource (visitor list from text), and explicitly scopes it as a preview without registration. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling registration tools like register_visitors_from_text.

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?

Explicitly says to call this before registration ('등록 전에 먼저 호출하세요'), giving clear context. It does not name when-not-to-use or explicitly contrast with preview_visitors_from_file, so it falls 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.