get_slide_deck_outline_prompt

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 only describes the output format without mentioning any behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, or if there are any side effects. The agent lacks transparency about operational characteristics.

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 two sentences with no fluff: first sentence states the purpose with specific deck types, second lists key output components. It includes a '[PRO]' label which may be extraneous, but overall efficient. Front-loads the core action.

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 7 required parameters with no schema descriptions and no annotations, the description is insufficient to guide correct parameter filling. While an output schema exists, the description does not explain how input choices affect the outline. A description this brief leaves the agent under-informed about how to use the tool effectively.

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% for 7 required parameters, and the description does not explain how any parameter influences the outline. The listing of output components (slide title, key content, visual type) does not map to or clarify the purpose of the input fields (e.g., presentation_type, topic_or_drug). The description adds no semantic value beyond the raw schema.

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 creates a slide-by-slide outline for specific deck types (advisory board, symposium, HCP education) and lists output components (slide title, key content, visual type). This verb-resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_manuscript_outline_prompt or get_structured_abstract_prompt.

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 implies usage for 'advisory board, symposium, or HCP education decks' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_manuscript_outline_prompt for manuscripts). No exclusions or selection criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer appropriate contexts from the name.

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