preview_slide_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does state a key behavioral trait: no generation occurs. It does not explain what validation checks are performed, whether the operation is read-only, error behavior, or any rate limits, but the explicit 'without generating' is a meaningful boundary.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the core action and contains no filler words. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the complexity of the input schema and the absence of annotations.

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 tool with a richly nested input schema, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and an output schema present, this one-sentence description is insufficient. It conveys the non-generative preview nature but leaves the agent without guidance on the brief's many required fields, validation behavior, or how visual_system affects output.

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%, so the description must compensate but does almost nothing: it mentions 'one brief' and 'a visual system' only in passing, adding no meaning about structure, format, or expected content beyond what the schema already defines. The nested SlideBrief and Element types are entirely unexplained.

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 states a specific compound action: validate a single brief and return its prompt under a visual system, without generating. It clearly distinguishes itself from generation tools via 'without generating,' though it does not explicitly name or compare against siblings like preview_deck_generation or generate_deck_images.

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 phrase 'without generating' implies the tool is used when a preview is desired but image generation is not, offering implicit usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over preview_deck_generation or how it fits into the sibling workflow, leaving usage largely inferred.

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