gslides-format

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or return behavior. The description says nothing about any of these, giving the agent zero insight into what invoking this tool entails.

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 extremely under-specified, not concise. It is a single sentence but contains no actionable information, failing to front-load any useful content. While it is short, it lacks substance, making it more of a placeholder than a meaningful description.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what the tool does and what the output represents, but it does neither. The description is entirely inadequate for an agent to understand when and how to invoke this tool, especially among many sibling tools with vague names.

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 has zero parameters, making parameter semantics irrelevant. Since there are no parameters to explain, the baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. However, the description also does not help contextualize the tool's purpose, which would be beneficial even with no 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 'The gslides-format skill document' provides no verb or resource, merely restating the tool name in a vague nominal phrase. It fails to indicate what the tool does, how it operates, or what output it produces. This is essentially a tautology with no functional meaning.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what problems it solves, or how it relates to sibling tools. The description offers no context about scenarios where this tool is appropriate or when alternatives should be chosen.

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