preview_slides

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'editable JSON' and outlines a multi-step workflow, including that slides may have 'aiSuggestion' fields and how to enhance them. However, it doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, when to call, workflow, returns). It's appropriately sized but includes a detailed workflow that, while helpful, could be slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value, but it's not maximally concise.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates well by explaining the return format ('SlidePlan JSON with slides array, sourceTitle, summary') and the workflow context. It addresses complexity by detailing how to use the output with other tools, making it complete for agent understanding.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain 'content' formats or 'slideCount' implications in detail), but it doesn't need to since the schema is well-documented.

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: 'Convert content into a structured slide plan WITHOUT rendering. Returns editable JSON.' It specifies the verb (convert), resource (content into slide plan), and distinguishes from sibling 'render_slides' by emphasizing 'without rendering.'

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?

Explicitly provides when to call: 'When the user wants to review or edit slide content before rendering' and positions it as 'the first step in the enhanced workflow.' It distinguishes from 'render_slides' and mentions integration with Gemini MCP tools, offering clear alternatives and context.

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