check_gamma_watermark_support

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool checks format and returns guidance, but does not specify behavior for missing files, permissions, or error handling. It does disclose it is a read-only check, but lacks depth.

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 front-loaded purpose statement, followed by clearly separated Args and Returns sections. No wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple with one input and an output schema provided. The description covers the main purpose and return guidance. However, it lacks details on the nature of the guidance (e.g., error codes, messages). Slight gap, but overall complete for its complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds 'path to the file to check' beyond the parameter name, but does not specify path format or existence guarantee. Adequate but not detailed.

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 it checks whether a file is a supported Gamma export format (.pdf/.pptx). The verb 'check' and resource 'file' are specific. The sibling tool 'remove_gamma_watermark' suggests this is a validation step, providing differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied as a pre-check before processing (e.g., removing watermarks), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remove_gamma_watermark'. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites mentioned.

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