how_to_code_slice

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 'Provides slice and field implementation guidance' and 'RETURNS: ... documentation and code examples', implying a read-only knowledge retrieval. However, it does not explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior or disclose any side effects, which is minimal but acceptable for a guidance tool.

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 extremely concise: three sentences with clear labels (PURPOSE, USAGE, RETURNS). Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded. No unnecessary 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 has 5 required parameters and no output schema. The description summarizes the return value as 'Prismic Framework-specific field documentation and code examples', which is somewhat general but sufficient for a guidance tool. It could mention output format or error handling, but overall it covers the essential 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, providing clear descriptions for all 5 parameters. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states it provides slice and field implementation guidance for Prismic slice components, which is a specific verb+resource. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like 'how_to_mock_slice' (mocking) and 'how_to_model_slice' (modeling).

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 says 'Use FIRST when working with any Prismic slice component or field implementation', providing clear context and priority among siblings. It does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, but the instruction is direct and helpful.

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