글 표지 만들기

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

Beyond the annotations (which are all false and provide no behavioral hints), the description discloses adaptive text fitting: line wrapping and font-size reduction based on actual measurements. It also implies the output is a URL ('returned address'). This adds meaningful context about how the tool behaves. It does not mention the upload default behavior, but no contradiction exists.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by behavior and integration instructions. Every clause provides value, with no redundancy or filler. It is concise and well-structured for agent consumption.

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 description covers the core purpose, adaptive behavior, and integration with velog_update_post, which is essential for basic use. However, with eight parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations, it omits details on several parameters (e.g., tone, subtitle, upload, post_id) and the exact return format. It is sufficient for a simple call but not fully complete for all scenarios.

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 only 25% (footer and kicker have descriptions). The description adds no semantic meaning for the remaining six parameters (title, subtitle, tone, tags, upload, post_id). It references title only in the context of wrapping behavior, not its semantics. Given the low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving agents without guidance for most parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's function: creates a cover image (1200×630) for post lists and SNS previews. It uses a specific verb (makes) and identifies the resource (cover image), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like velog_render_diagram and velog_upload_image.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use: to generate cover images for post lists/SNS previews. It also explicitly instructs to pass the returned URL to velog_update_post's thumbnail, demonstrating a concrete workflow. It doesn't state exclusions but offers sufficient guidance for correct usage.

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