screenshot_slide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the two traits an agent most needs: the ~1000-token cost per call and the PNG output format, plus the anti-looping cost warning. It does not state whether the operation is read-only or whether authentication/presentation selection is required, so it falls short of full disclosure.

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 waste, with the cost signal and output type front-loaded before the usage and exclusion guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Return format (PNG) and per-call cost are stated, and all four parameters are fully covered by the schema, so no output schema is needed. Minor gap: no mention of presentation-scoping or failure behavior for out-of-range indices.

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 100% (width, height, slideIndex, presentationId are all documented in-schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter guidance of its own, such as the zero-based indexing caveat or default width.

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 ('captures one slide as PNG image') and immediately bounds the scope ('one slide'). It distinguishes itself from preview_deck by naming that sibling as the bulk alternative.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('visually verify layout after changes') and explicit when-not ('Do NOT loop over all slides') with the correct alternative named ('use preview_deck instead'). Nothing is left to inference.

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