slide-plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return value ('section tuples'), how it integrates with module-overview-page's make_page, and the transformation behavior. It does not mention side effects or permission requirements, but for a non-mutating sub-skill this is likely not critical. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the empty input schema.

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 concise and well-structured: it starts with the core function, then describes the return value, usage context, and trigger phrases. Each sentence adds value and there is no fluff. The front-loaded core function makes it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's purpose.

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 (not shown but indicated) and zero parameters, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and how it fits with module-overview-page. It covers the essential behavioral and integration details needed for selection and invocation.

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 (empty object), so there are no parameter details to document. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and output rather than parameters, earning the baseline score of 4 for no-param tools.

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 what the tool does: 'turn a multi-slide module into one SECTION per slide' and explicitly mentions the output ('Returns section tuples that module-overview-page's make_page consumes'). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling module-overview-page by positioning as a sub-skill with a specific transformation role.

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 gives an explicit use case: 'Use when a module has SEVERAL slide decks and you want each slide's content summarized next to the tasks derived from it.' It also provides trigger phrases. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools, though the sub-skill relationship to module-overview-page provides some context.

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