Build a standalone HTML slide deck

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the return value is the full HTML document as text, that it is self-contained/offline, and implicitly that no file is written ('save it as .html'). It omits any mention of side effects or failure modes for malformed outlines, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, format rules second, return/usage third. Every sentence carries non-redundant information with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description explains the return value (full HTML text, portable offline), which is the main gap a caller would face. Combined with the 100%-covered two-parameter schema and the outline syntax rules, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by specifying the outline mini-language ('# Slide title', one bullet per line, two-space indent for sub-points), which the schema only gestures at. It adds no further meaning for the optional title parameter, which the schema already covers.

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 ('turn a plain-text outline into a complete, self-contained HTML presentation') plus a concrete capability detail (arrow-key navigation). An agent can tell exactly what producing this tool yields without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the input description (hand it an outline, get HTML), but the description never mentions the sibling check_outline or states when to validate an outline first versus building directly. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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