preview_organize

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true and destructiveHint: false, so the tool's safety profile is covered. The description adds the explicit 'does not touch files' statement, reinforcing the read-only behavior, but does not reveal additional behavioral nuances (e.g., whether it creates temporary state, requires specific permissions, or has any other side effects). Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not enriched.

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 exactly two short sentences with zero redundancy. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the critical non-destructive nature is stated immediately. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding without wasted text.

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 7 parameters and nested objects, the description is brief, but all parameter semantics are covered by the schema descriptions, and the output schema exists to define the return value. The description precisely communicates the tool's role and safety, which is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it. It slightly lacks an explicit mention of typical usage flow (e.g., 'preview before apply_organize'), but that is more of a usage guideline gap than a contextual one.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all 7 parameters (coverage 100%), so the schema carries the full semantic load. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning. Per the guideline, a high coverage baseline of 3 is appropriate; no additional insight is offered beyond what the schema already states.

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 specific verb ('만들어 보여줍니다' - creates and shows) and resource (a plan for dividing documents into folders). It explicitly distinguishes itself from mutation tools by asserting '파일을 전혀 건드리지 않습니다' (does not touch files at all), which clearly differentiates it from the sibling apply_organize. This is a precise, unambiguous purpose statement.

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 description conveys clear usage context: use this to preview a folder-division plan before actually applying changes. The statement about not touching files implicitly steers the agent toward apply_organize when actual changes are needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state conditions for when NOT to use it, such as comparing to preview_save_summary. Still, the primary usage intent is evident.

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