diapositiva_divisor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It describes the visual layout but does not state that it creates a slide, where the slide is inserted by default, what permissions are needed, or what the tool returns.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The core visual composition is stated immediately.

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 six-parameter slide-creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It covers visual appearance but omits the required presentation identifier, insertion behavior, presenter notes, and return behavior.

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 67%, and the description adds visual meaning for numero, titulo, and subtitulo. However, it does not mention the required documento parameter or explain notas and despues_de, leaving gaps for an agent invoking the tool.

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?

It identifies the exact slide type to create: a section divider with a large number in the accent color, title, and subtitle. This distinguishes it from sibling slide types such as diapositiva_portada, diapositiva_contenido, and diapositiva_cierre, though it lacks an explicit verb like "crear" or "insertar".

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as diapositiva_portada, diapositiva_contenido, or diapositiva_cierre. It implies usage only through the slide type name and visual composition.

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