Generate deck

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses 'Long-running; emits progress,' which is a key behavioral trait, and it lists the produced artifacts. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether it creates or overwrites resources), idempotency, failure modes, or permission/cost implications. It adds some transparency beyond a bare statement but leaves many behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('The full generation...') and then enumerating outputs. Every word adds value, with no redundant phrases. It is compact and well-structured for quick parsing.

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 complex tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. While it lists the output artifacts and mentions long-running behavior, it lacks explanation of the input semantics, when to use it relative to sibling tools, and what the 'Scope-Guard' and 'Script-Sync' steps entail. The agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly in many scenarios.

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%, meaning the description explains none of the five parameters (planId, themeId, enrichmentId, includeQuizzes, quizEveryNConcepts). The description mentions outputs like 'scope ledger' but gives no hint of how these parameters influence generation. Since the schema itself lacks descriptions, the agent is left guessing about the meaning and effects of each parameter, which is a significant 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?

The description clearly states this is 'The full generation: Draft → Scope-Guard → Render → Script-Sync,' which is a specific, multi-step process with a distinct resource (a Reveal.js bundle and associated artifacts). It names concrete outputs (presenter script, scope ledger, cost-report manifest), and the pipeline reference distinguishes it from the sibling 'render_deck' which likely only performs the render step.

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 implies this is the full-pipeline tool, especially with 'full generation' contrasted against 'render_deck', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites such as first using 'plan_presentation' or whether a 'planId' must exist, nor does it provide any exclusions (e.g., 'use render_deck if you only need to render').

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