generate_ppt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the internal pipeline (Plans an outline using Gemini, generates slide images, outputs a PDF) and parameter constraints such as 'max 3000 chars used' for context_text. This adds behavioral context beyond the schema, though it doesn't detail side effects, failure modes, or permissions.

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 front-loads the purpose, adds workflow context, then provides usage guidance, and ends with a clear Args list. Every sentence contributes value without unnecessary fluff.

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?

The description covers the core functionality, workflow, usage, and parameter details. Since an output schema exists, return value explanation is not required. It misses potential edge-case behavior (e.g., error handling, file output location), but for a generation tool this is reasonably complete.

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 schema provides only parameter titles with no descriptions. The description compensates thoroughly by defining each parameter: topic with examples, context_text with a length limit, and page_count with a default. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema structure.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Generate a complete PPT presentation from a topic and optional context.' It further details the workflow (plans outline via Gemini, generates slide images, outputs PDF), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_image. The purpose is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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 explicitly states 'Use this when the user wants to create a PPT/presentation.' It also mentions the /ppt skill integration, providing context on automated invocation. It lacks explicit exclusions or a comparison to alternatives, but the trigger condition is clear and sufficient for an agent to select this tool.

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