Preview deck

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

The description discloses the return format (contact sheet by default or individual slides) and suggests how to use the output for quality checks. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value by explaining what the rendered images are for, going beyond the annotation's basic safety flag.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Render a generated deck to images'), followed by return format and practical usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 description explains the return format and intended use, and the schema covers all parameters and defaults. It could explicitly state that the deck must already be generated, but 'generated deck' and the sibling deck_generate make this clear enough. With no output schema, the return value explanation is adequate.

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?

All four parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides; the mention of 'contact sheet by default' merely reflects the mode parameter's default, not new information.

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 uses a specific verb 'Render' with a specific resource 'generated deck', clearly stating it produces images for visual inspection. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on visual rendering rather than capabilities, fetching, validation, or generation.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to visually inspect a deck for issues like text spilling, empty slides, or badly wrapped titles, and implies a follow-up workflow of fixing Markdown and regenerating. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, stopping short of full when/when-not guidance.

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