gamma_describe_options

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

No annotations provided, but the description fully carries the burden by stating it's a local lookup (no network call) and no side effects are implied. The behavior is transparent and clearly described.

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, with a clear structure: a sentence stating the purpose, a line about no network call, and an args section with detailed bullet points. No unnecessary information.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, behavior, parameters, and usage context completely for a parameter discovery tool.

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 0%, yet the description provides exhaustive detail on the 'category' parameter (listing all possible values) and clarifies that 'format' filters dimensions by format for specific categories. This adds significant value beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: describing accepted enum values for Gamma API parameters. It specifies that it is a local lookup with no network call, distinguishing it from sibling tools (generate, status, folders, themes).

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 context for when to use the tool (to discover valid values) and lists possible categories and the format filter. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, so it's slightly less than perfect.

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