view_slide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the return is a rendered picture, and for PowerPoint the embedded images are returned alongside text. It stops short of stating any size, resolution or page-limit behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the PowerPoint-specific detail, the usage trigger, and a prompt-injection caution. Every sentence carries weight, though the trailing <sakai_content> safety note is longer than the tool mechanics require.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully discloses that the result is a picture rather than text, which is essential for an agent to interpret the response. Combined with 100% parameter coverage and clear annotations, it is nearly complete; only edge-case behavior such as invalid pages or large documents is unaddressed.

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%, so both parameters (page, resource) are already fully documented with defaults and minimums. The description implies page/slide selection but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Show one PDF page or PowerPoint slide as a picture') and explicitly scopes the value-add: equations, diagrams, handwritten annotations, charts. This clearly separates it from text-oriented siblings like get_resource, which the description names directly.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use after get_resource when the text looks incomplete or the student asks about a diagram'), naming both the precursor tool and the two conditions that select this tool. Nothing is left to inference.

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