generate_slides

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 generates a slide deck, implying a creation/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, whether it modifies existing data, rate limits, or what the output entails. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first in a single sentence, followed by a brief parameter list. There's no wasted text, and it's easy to scan. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but it's efficient overall.

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 the tool has an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and 2 parameters, the description is incomplete: it lacks behavioral context, detailed usage guidelines, and full parameter semantics. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps, especially for a generation tool.

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 meaning by explaining that 'notebook_id' is for a 'NotebookLM notebook' and 'instructions' are 'Custom instructions for slide deck generation,' which clarifies the purpose of each parameter beyond the schema's basic titles. However, it doesn't provide details like format constraints or examples, so it only partially compensates for the low coverage.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Generates a Slide Deck for a notebook.' It specifies the verb ('Generates') and resource ('Slide Deck'), and distinguishes it from siblings like generate_report or generate_infographic by focusing on slide decks. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., generate_video), so it's not a perfect 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose generate_slides over generate_report or generate_infographic, nor does it specify prerequisites or context for usage. The only implied usage is having a notebook, but this is not explicit.

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