screenshot_slide

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action but doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the slide doesn't exist, whether the operation is destructive to the presentation, or what the expected output behavior is (e.g., file creation confirmation). 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 perfectly concise at just 6 words, front-loading the core functionality with zero wasted language. Every word earns its place by communicating the essential action and target resource efficiently.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error conditions, dependencies on other operations (e.g., needing an open presentation), or what constitutes successful execution. The context demands more comprehensive guidance.

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 description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). It doesn't explain the relationship between parameters (e.g., that slide_number refers to a specific slide in the current presentation) or provide additional context about parameter usage. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value added.

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 action ('Take a screenshot') and resource ('of a single slide'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential alternatives like 'export_pdf' or other slide export methods, which would require sibling differentiation for a perfect score.

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 like 'export_pdf' or other slide content retrieval tools. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., whether a presentation must be open first) or limitations, offering only basic functional information.

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