call_slidev_tool

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'passthrough' but does not disclose error handling when the called tool doesn't exist, whether a presentation must be selected first, whether the operation is read-only or potentially destructive, or what the return format looks like. An arbitrary tool invoker needs more safety context.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the use-case context. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition. This is nearly ideal concision.

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 this is a passthrough to an unknown set of tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain how a client should discover valid tool names, what happens if the tool is not found, whether a presentation must be actively selected, or whether the output is simply the underlying tool's output. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should convey more about expected behavior and prerequisites.

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% with both parameters described. The 'tool' parameter is well-described as 'Original tool name on the Slidev MCP', and 'args' is described as 'Arguments for that tool'. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('call'), resource ('tool of the currently targeted presentation's official Slidev MCP'), and mechanism ('by its original name'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by being a 'fallback passthrough' rather than a concrete operation, making its role clear.

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 identifies when to use this tool: 'Useful for MCP clients that do not support dynamic tool list updates (tools/list_changed)'. It implies that for supporting clients, the direct tools should be used instead, though it doesn't name specific alternatives. This gives clear usage context.

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