entry_preview_assets

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says it views thumbnails and caps at 8. It does not state what is returned (image data vs. URLs), whether the call is read-only, or what happens with invalid or excess ids; the max-8 detail merely restates a schema constraint.

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?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the purpose and ending with the limit — no filler or restated name. The only minor redundancy is the '최대 8개' note, which duplicates the schema's maxItems=8 restriction.

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?

For a tool with two required parameters, an unexplained enum, no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves critical gaps: enum semantics, identifier format, and return shape are all undocumented. It is not complete enough for an agent to call it confidently without inspecting the schema.

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 the description never mentions the two required parameters by name. It does not explain what 'kind' means or how the sprite/picture enum should be chosen, nor does it clarify that 'ids' is a list of library resource identifiers; only the '최대 8개' clause loosely maps to maxItems on ids.

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 ('봅니다' / view) and resource ('라이브러리 리소스의 썸네일 이미지' / library resource thumbnail images) with a stated purpose (design selection). It is clear on its own, but it never contrasts itself with related siblings like entry_object_assets or entry_search_assets, so the boundary is left implicit.

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 '(디자인 선택용)' implies the context of use — previewing thumbnails when choosing a design — which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no alternative named, so the agent must infer when this beats the other entry_* asset tools.

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