validate_presentation

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that it does no rendering, makes no model call, is fast, and only evaluates structural defects rather than appearance. It also explains how min_severity changes the reported faults, including a nuanced note about font substitution affecting visual QA approximations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then uses short labeled segments for usage, non-goals, severity semantics, and return value. Every sentence adds operational value without filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter read-only validation tool, this description covers when to run it, what it detects, what it deliberately does not detect, severity semantics, and return shape. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, but the description compensates with a detailed explanation of min_severity values ('error', 'warning', 'info') and what each includes. presentation_id is self-explanatory by name, and the overall parameter space is well covered.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'check the deck for structural faults, without rendering it.' It then lists concrete defect classes such as unresolved relationships, charts with no data, shapes off the canvas, and stretched pictures, making it easy to distinguish from visual review tools.

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?

It explicitly says 'Run this before export' and clearly separates concerns: 'Overflowing text, overlaps and spacing are visual_inspect_slides' job; the two are complementary.' This gives the agent both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with a named alternative.

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