export_pdf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Export' implies a write operation that creates a file, but the description doesn't mention whether this requires a presentation to be open, what happens if the output path exists, or any performance/rate considerations. For a file-creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and immediately states the output format. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 file-export tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what gets exported (current slide? entire presentation?), whether the presentation must be open first, what happens on failure, or what the return value might be. Given the complexity of file operations and lack of structured metadata, more context is needed.

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%, with the single parameter 'output_path' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (no format examples, path validation rules, or special considerations). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'export' and the resource 'presentation as PDF', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'screenshot_slide' or 'save_presentation', which might also produce files. The description is specific about the output format (PDF) but doesn't clarify scope (current slide vs entire presentation).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an open presentation), comparison to 'screenshot_slide' (which might produce image files), or 'save_presentation' (which might save in native format). The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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