GenPPT

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description only needs to add context. It does add one valuable disclosure the annotations do not cover — that a saved card (payment data) is surfaced — but it says nothing about the unconnected/expired-auth case implied by "connected", nor about how fresh the usage figures are.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource first and the payload as a compact list; nothing is repeated from the name or annotations and nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does by naming the four data groups an agent will receive. The remaining gap is the failure mode when no account is connected, which matters for a tool whose whole premise is a connected account.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics to compensate for. The description correctly spends no words on inputs.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Show") with a specific resource ("the connected GenPPT account") and enumerates the returned facets (plan, decks used this period, saved card, upgrade options), which separates it from deck-manipulation siblings like genppt_list_decks. It stops short of naming the closely related genppt_upgrade_plan, which the mention of "upgrade options" invites confusion with.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the account-inspection call, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no exclusion. Most notably, it never says whether to call this or genppt_upgrade_plan when the user wants to upgrade, even though "upgrade options" appears in the returned fields.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation and open-world nature is already covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the call returns immediately while rendering completes in 1-3 minutes, and it consumes one deck from the plan allowance — both important for sequencing and quota awareness.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then timing and quota. Every clause carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say what comes back — it only says 'Returns at once' without indicating that a deck identifier is likely returned and required for follow-up calls like genppt_generate_slides or genppt_get_deck. The async timing and quota notes are good, but the return-value gap leaves the agent without a handoff path.

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 100%, including per-parameter descriptions and the aspectRatio enum, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description only loosely echoes that prompt/notes/URLs are the inputs, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource — 'Generate a new AI presentation deck' — plus the accepted input sources (prompt, notes, URLs). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling genppt_generate_slides, though the 'slides render in 1-3 minutes' line hints that deck creation is separate from slide generation.

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?

Use is implied (creating a brand-new deck from a prompt or source material) and the cost signal ('Uses one deck from the plan allowance') is a useful trigger for caution. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over genppt_generate_slides or genppt_get_deck, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: the call blocks until the file is built, with a stated ceiling of about 2 minutes, and it returns a download URL rather than the file itself. The paid-plan constraint is a genuine gating fact the annotations do not carry. It does not say whether the URL expires or what happens if the build exceeds the wait.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The action and formats lead, followed by execution behavior, with the plan restriction last as a gate.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly discloses the return value (a download URL), the blocking wait, and the plan restriction, which is enough to invoke the tool confidently. Minor gaps remain around timeout failure behavior and URL lifetime for a long-running export.

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 100% and the format enum is already self-documenting in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description echoes the format choices and adds only the implicit constraint that deckId should reference a completed deck.

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?

Specific verb (export) plus resource (a ready deck) plus the three concrete output formats. It is unambiguous against siblings like genppt_create_deck, genppt_generate_slides and genppt_get_deck, since the word 'ready' makes clear this only packages an existing, finished deck.

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?

Gives clear preconditions: the deck must be ready, and the operation is limited to paid plans. It stops short of routing a free-plan agent to genppt_upgrade_plan or saying what to do when a deck is not yet generated, so the when-not path is implied rather than stated.

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

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that — a 1-3 minute duration, the equivalent UI action, and a phase precondition. It leaves gaps on whether the call blocks or returns a job handle, and whether it overwrites previously rendered slides.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what it does plus the precondition first, then the UI equivalence for grounding, then the expected wait time. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and a paid-plan sibling (genppt_upgrade_plan), the description omits what the call returns on completion, what happens on a phase mismatch, and whether credits are consumed. Duration and precondition are covered, so it is workable but not complete.

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?

There is a single deckId parameter with a 100% documented schema including UUID format and a pointer to genppt_list_decks/genppt_create_deck as sources. The description adds nothing about the parameter itself, so the schema carries the full load and the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Render the full slides") and pins it to a concrete gating condition in a named sibling tool ("once genppt_get_deck shows phase concepts_ready"). The "Same as the Generate button in the studio" mapping lets an agent distinguish this from genppt_export_deck and genppt_get_deck without opening any 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?

Gives a hard precondition for invocation (deck phase must be concepts_ready as reported by genppt_get_deck), which effectively implies when not to call it. It does not name an alternative to use when the phase is not ready (e.g., poll with get_deck), so it stops short of explicit when/when-not/alternative coverage.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return payload (phase, concept preview, slides, image URLs) and that the deck's state is pollable, though it says nothing about behavior when the deckId doesn't exist or a deck is still generating.

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 sentences, no filler, with the returned contents front-loaded and the polling guidance second. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema and only one documented parameter, so the description's summary of return fields is the agent's main signal about what comes back. It is nearly complete; only error/not-found behavior is unaddressed, which is minor for a read-only lookup.

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 100% and the deckId property already says it comes from genppt_list_decks or genppt_create_deck. The description adds no further meaning about the identifier, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Get one deck") and enumerates what it returns: phase, concept preview, slides, image URLs. The singular "one deck" implicitly contrasts with genppt_list_decks, but no sibling is named, so differentiation is by inference rather than explicit.

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?

Gives a concrete usage scenario: "Poll it after genppt_create_deck to follow progress," which tells the agent exactly when this tool belongs in a workflow. It does not state when not to use it (e.g., bulk retrieval should use list_decks), leaving one small gap.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond annotations — results are ordered newest-edits-first — but says nothing about pagination, total counts, or what happens when the search matches nothing.

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?

A single short sentence with the action and the sort behavior front-loaded; no filler and nothing redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 simple two-parameter read-only list tool, annotations plus a fully described schema plus the disclosed sort order cover nearly everything an agent needs. Only secondary details like pagination or empty-result behavior are absent, which is minor at this complexity.

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 100%: limit, its default of 20 and max of 100, and the title-based search filter are all documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List the user's GenPPT decks") with clear ownership scope, which naturally separates it from sibling genppt_get_deck (singular) and genppt_create_deck. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the plural "decks" and the word "List"; there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not statement, and no pointer to alternatives such as genppt_get_deck for a single deck or genppt_export_deck. An agent can infer the intent, but nothing steers it.

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

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

The annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description must carry the rest of the behavioral burden. "Send ... to the GenPPT team" does imply a one-way submission, but nothing is said about whether a confirmation or ticket id is returned, whether submission is idempotent, rate limits, anonymity, or how deckId/context are consumed for diagnostics.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the action and target audience land immediately. Its brevity is efficient rather than padded, though the space saved is not reinvested in any guidance.

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 write tool with a nested object parameter, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, one sentence is not enough. An agent cannot tell what a successful call yields or how to populate 'context' meaningfully, which matters before submitting feedback on the user's behalf.

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% across 4 parameters, including a nested free-form 'context' object and a UUID-constrained optional 'deckId'. The description only loosely names three of the four enum categories (omitting 'other') and says nothing about the 4000-character message limit or what deckId/context are for.

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 gives a specific verb ("Send") and resource ("a bug report, feature request, or question ... to the GenPPT team"), which maps cleanly onto the category enum. It is clearly distinguishable from every sibling (deck/account tools), though it never explicitly says so.

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?

Usage is only implied by the enumerated feedback types: an agent can infer it should call this when a user reports a bug or asks for a feature. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not, and no mention of the sibling tools that would be the alternative for deck-related problems.

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

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

readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read, and the description reinforces it with "Never charges" while disclosing what the true branch actually does (returns a checkout link where the user pays). It does not say what the preview response contains or whether prices expire, but the critical side-effect boundary is clearly drawn.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the safe default and the non-charging guarantee before the conditional instruction. No wasted wording.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the safety model, the confirmation gate, and the divergent return behavior. Only the contents of a price preview (fields, currency, validity) are left unstated.

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?

confirmPaymentSpend is already documented in the schema, and the description adds the human-approval requirement plus the return-value difference between the two branches. The plan enum's three tiers receive no explanation of what distinguishes growth from max or monthly from yearly, which is the remaining gap.

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 and resource ("Preview the cost of a GenPPT plan") and immediately clarifies the non-charging nature. No sibling tool in the list handles billing, so the scope is unambiguous without needing to compare schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition for the risky path: ask the user before passing confirmPaymentSpend: true. There is no guidance on when to pick a particular plan tier or on defaults, but the only real decision point in the tool is covered.

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