diapositiva_figura

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

No annotations are provided. The description adds useful behavioral detail: white-card layout, left figure/right bullets with body, full-width without body, aspect-ratio preservation, and a conditional source-caption requirement; however, it does not state that it creates/mutates a slide, side effects, permissions, or error behavior.

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 short and mostly front-loaded, moving from the core figure card to layout conditions and image behavior with no filler. The opening is a noun phrase rather than an explicit action statement, so it is not quite a 5.

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 10-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the visual output and an important conditional rule but omits creation semantics, return behavior, and selection guidance. The schema supplies most parameter details, so it is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 high, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema for key parameters: cuerpo changes the composition, origen may be obligatory depending on topic, and imagen is proportion-preserving. It still leaves several params to the schema, so it is not fully self-contained.

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 identifies a figure slide on a white card and makes the with/without-body layouts concrete, so an agent can tell it is the figure-oriented slide creator. It lacks an explicit action verb and does not name sibling alternatives, which keeps it below 5.

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?

It gives a conditional rule for when the source caption is obligatory and explains how body content changes layout, but it does not say when to choose this tool over diapositiva_contenido or other slide-creating siblings, nor does it list exclusions.

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