diapositivas_desde_imagenes

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the output slide composition (white card, source footer, title from filename or titulos) and the one-slide-per-image behavior, but omits mutation side effects, presentation state prerequisites, insertion behavior, and error/return 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 front-loaded with the core rule, 'Una diapositiva por imagen'. The parenthetical efficiently packs the figure-slide details, though 'el formato' is an underspecified reference.

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 creation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the required documento and imagenes parameters, the despues_de insertion behavior, antetitulo, or what 'usa el comando de Keynote' entails.

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 57%, so some compensation is expected. The description clarifies titulos (title from filename or titulos) and references 'pie de origen', but does not explain antetitulo or the required documento/insertion semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the core behavior clearly: 'Una diapositiva por imagen', and distinguishes the result as a diapositiva_figura when using 'el formato'. The undefined phrase 'el formato' keeps it from being a 5, but the resource and outcome are understandable.

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?

Describes a mode-dependent outcome rather than when to use this tool versus alternatives. It names no sibling alternative explicitly, and the 'en otras presentaciones usa el comando de Keynote' fallback is vague, leaving the agent to infer the selection criteria.

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