generate_slide

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates a slide and returns a markdown string, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or rate limits. For a tool with mutation implications (generating content), this is insufficient, as it doesn't cover critical behavioral traits beyond the basic operation.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and output. It avoids unnecessary words and directly communicates the tool's function without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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's complexity (with nested objects in parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format in detail (e.g., structure of the markdown), error cases, or how to handle the 'params' object effectively. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to use the tool correctly in context.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('layoutType' and 'params'). The description adds minimal value by implying the use of 'academic theme layouts' and specifying the output as a markdown string, but doesn't elaborate on parameter usage beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high schema 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 action ('Generate a slide') and resource ('academic theme layouts'), with a specific output format ('markdown string for copy-paste'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'init_presentation' and 'list_slide_layouts' by focusing on slide creation rather than presentation initialization or layout listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential overlapping functions, keeping it at 4 instead of 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 mentions 'academic theme layouts' but doesn't explain when to choose this over other tools or contexts, such as when to use 'init_presentation' first or how it relates to 'list_slide_layouts'. This lack of explicit usage context or exclusions results in a minimal score.

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