preview_deck

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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it quantifies cost (~900 tokens/slide with images vs ~35 text-only), implies a default (images on) and a performance tradeoff (text-only is faster). It does not state read-only semantics or any slide-count ceiling, but 'preview' plus the cost disclosure makes the operational profile clear.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the cost figures and the exclusion front-loaded. The semicolon-packed token-cost clause is dense but earns its space since it drives the includeImages decision.

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 4-param, all-optional read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, batching scope, output shape (thumbnails + text), cost, and routing. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by attaching the concrete cost differential to includeImages (~900 vs ~35 tokens/slide), which tells the agent why and when to flip that flag. The other three parameters are left entirely to the schema.

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+resource ('Deck preview') plus scope ('batch overview of all/selected slides with optional thumbnails + text'), and explicitly differentiates itself from the single-slide siblings. An agent can distinguish it from inspect_deck, inspect_slide and screenshot_slide without opening any 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?

Gives explicit use cases ('visual review or content audit') and an explicit negative case ('Do NOT use to inspect one slide') naming the two alternatives (inspect_slide, screenshot_slide). This is the when/when-not/alternative pattern at full strength.

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