Slidespeak

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'waits up to a configured time for the result,' which hints at asynchronous processing, but fails to disclose critical behaviors such as whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., file format, download link). For a complex generation tool with 21 parameters, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately front-loaded with a clear purpose statement, but it becomes verbose with the detailed parameter listing. While this detail is necessary given the poor schema coverage, the structure could be improved by grouping parameters thematically or using bullet points. The length is justified by the complexity, but it lacks efficient formatting, making it somewhat dense to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's high complexity (21 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It thoroughly documents parameters, which is a strength, but misses key contextual elements: no output details (what is returned?), no behavioral traits (e.g., async nature beyond wait time), and no guidance on tool selection versus siblings. For a generation tool with significant optional settings, more context on usage and results is needed to be fully helpful.

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 description excels in parameter semantics, adding substantial value beyond the input schema. With 0% schema description coverage and 21 parameters, the description compensates fully by listing all parameters, distinguishing required from optional, providing clear explanations (e.g., 'plain_text: The topic to generate a presentation about'), and including default values and allowed values for enums (e.g., tone options). This transforms an otherwise undocumented schema into a well-documented interface.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Generate a PowerPoint or PDF presentation based on text, length, and template.' It specifies the verb ('generate'), resource ('PowerPoint or PDF presentation'), and key inputs. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_slide_by_slide' or 'get_available_templates', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides minimal usage guidance. It mentions 'Supports optional settings' and 'Waits up to a configured time for the result,' but offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate_slide_by_slide' or 'upload_document.' There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with insufficient context for optimal tool selection.

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