Preview slides

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description goes further by disclosing the Playwright runtime dependency and that the reply explains how to install it if missing. That is real operational context an agent can act on. It stops short of describing image format/size or timing costs, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior before the usage guidance, and the example list is compact. The final sentence about Playwright installation is a slight digression but earns its place by preventing a failed call, so the length is close to justified.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so ('a small picture of each, fully revealed, plus any layout problems'). Combined with the dependency note and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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%, including the twelve-slide cap and the omit-for-all default, so the schema carries the parameter meaning. The description reinforces intent with examples ('chosen slides', 'a revised slide') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('look at slides as the viewer sees them') and specifies the return: a small picture of each slide plus layout problems the player found. It also implicitly contrasts with finish_walkthrough, which draws every slide rather than a selected subset, so an agent can tell them apart without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use list (slides a reply named, a drawing/diagram, a revised slide) and an explicit when-not: 'finish_walkthrough already draws every slide and reports these problems, so a full preview after it is rarely needed.' The alternative tool is named directly, leaving nothing to inference.

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