mulmocast-vision

Official

by receptron

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.12
Disambiguation2/5
Many tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., multiple funnel, roadmap, and matrix slide types). The sheer number of similarly named tools makes it difficult for an agent to distinguish between them, especially with slight variations like 'funnel' vs 'innovation funnel' vs 'pipeline funnel'.
Naming Consistency3/5
Most tools follow a consistent 'create[SlideType]Slide' pattern, but there are outliers like 'createimageSlide' (missing capitalization, duplicates functionality) and 'createPDF' (completely different pattern). Casing is mostly PascalCase but inconsistent for acronyms.
Tool Count1/5
83 tools is far too many for a slide creation server. The tool surface could be drastically reduced by generalizing slide types with parameters. This excessive count burdens the agent with unnecessary choices and indicates poor scoping.
Completeness2/5
Despite the large number, basic slide types like a plain text slide are missing, while many niche frameworks (Marimekko, GE-McKinsey) are included. The set has gaps in general-purpose tools and seems to prioritize consulting frameworks over common use cases.
Average 2.8/5 across 83 of 83 tools scored. Lowest: 1.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 14 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 15, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under AGPL 3.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It says 'create or update' but fails to explain update mechanics (e.g., how _index affects updates) or any side effects. No prerequisites or constraints are given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one sentence) but lacks essential details. It front-loads redundant information ('Create or update a closing slide') while omitting key parameter semantics and usage context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools with similar names, the description is critically incomplete. It does not differentiate from 'createThankYouContactSlide' or explain how to provide the intended content.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 33% (only _index described). The description mentions 'thank-you message and contacts' but no parameters map to these, so it adds no meaning and may confuse. It does not clarify the roles of title or imageUrl.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a purpose: creating or updating a closing slide with thank-you message and contacts. However, the input schema lacks fields for contacts or message, causing misalignment. Also, sibling tool 'createThankYouContactSlide' suggests overlap, reducing clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'createThankYouContactSlide'. No when-not or usage context is mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'create or update' but provides no detail on destructive behavior, update semantics, return values, or side effects. The _index parameter's role is only in schema, not description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at five words, but this brevity sacrifices meaningful content. Every sentence should earn its place; here the single sentence is too terse to be fully helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and many similar siblings, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain the slide's structure or distinguish it from alternatives.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 25% (only _index described). The description adds no explanations for dimensions, levels, or notes, leaving their purpose and usage unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Create or update a digital maturity assessment,' which identifies the resource but omits the slide context implied by the name. It does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like createCapabilityMaturitySlide.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as createCapabilityMaturitySlide or other assessment slides. No conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'create or update' without detailing side effects, permissions, or state changes. The _index parameter suggests update behavior but is not explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only one sentence, which is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It lacks essential information about parameters and usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, a nested items structure, and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain slide structure, update semantics, or how releases and items relate, making it inadequate for an AI agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only _index has a description). The description does not explain the crucial parameters 'items' and 'releases', leaving their meaning and usage ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create or update a product roadmap' clearly states the action and object, but it does not differentiate from sibling roadmap tools like createQuarterlyRoadmapSlide or createTechRoadmapSlide, which are more specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple roadmap slide tools, explicit usage context is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'create or update' but does not explain the update behavior (though the _index parameter partially covers this in the schema). No mention of authentication, idempotency, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 9 words, which is concise but at the expense of necessary detail. It is not overly verbose, but arguably under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a slide tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the slide's visual structure or how the arrays (risks, milestones, workstreams) are rendered. More context is needed for an agent to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25% (only _index has a description). The tool description adds no parameter information beyond the schema. It does not explain the meaning of risks, milestones, or workstreams, leaving the agent without context for these parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Create or update a go-to-market launch plan,' but the tool name indicates it is a slide. The purpose is vague and does not clearly specify that it creates a slide, nor does it distinguish the slide's content from sibling tools like createMilestoneTimelineSlide.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to create versus update, or when to choose this slide over other slide types like createExecutiveSummarySlide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description only says 'create or update' but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, prerequisites, or permission needs. No mention of what happens to existing slides or placeholder behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise but at the cost of missing essential information. Under-specification is not beneficial.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Complete lack of output schema and missing behavioral details. Given multiple sibling tools, a rich description is needed but not provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 33% (only _index described). Description does not explain the meaning of 'steps' array or 'title' string, leaving agents to guess. Critical parameter 'steps' has no additional context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description specifies action (create/update) and resource (numeric waterfall steps placeholder), clearly stating the tool's function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool createPricingWaterfallSlide, reducing precision.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like createPricingWaterfallSlide or other slide creators. Sibling list is large with no differentiation hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions 'Create or update,' which hints at mutation, but lacks details on side effects, such as whether existing slides are replaced or appended. The _index parameter partially covers this, but the description itself does not explain the full behavioral impact (e.g., potential data loss if updating). No annotations exist to compensate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. However, it is too concise, sacrificing necessary detail. It earns a 4 for efficiency but loses points for completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, moderate parameter complexity (arrays), and a large sibling set, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the benchmarking table includes, how the result is presented, or what triggers an update vs. creation. The agent would need to guess or experiment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only _index has a description). The tool description does not explain what 'metrics' or 'competitors' represent or how they are used. For a tool with low schema coverage, the description should provide parameter meaning, but it does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Create or update a benchmarking comparison table,' which identifies the verb and resource. However, it adds no detail beyond the tool's name, and does not differentiate it from the many other slide creation tools (e.g., createSwotSlide, createFunnelSlide). The purpose is minimally clear but relies heavily on the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With over 70 sibling slide creation tools, an agent would need to infer from the name alone, leading to potential misuse. There are no usage scenarios or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It says 'Create or update' but does not explain implications like whether updates are idempotent, if previous data is overwritten, or what the response looks like.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, but it is underspecified for the task. It could be more concise if it had more content, but as is, it lacks detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, no annotations, and only one of three parameters is described in the schema. The description does not fill gaps regarding return values or side effects. For a creation tool, it is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 33% (only _index has a description). The description does not add meaning for 'stages' or 'metrics' beyond their types, and does not explain the '_index' parameter's behavior fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Create or update a customer success journey map,' which is a verb+resource, but it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'createCustomerJourneySlide'. The title is null, adding no clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'createCustomerJourneySlide', nor any conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It says 'create or update' but doesn't explain whether update overwrites or merges, or what side effects occur. The _index parameter's behavior is documented in the schema, not the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, very concise. However, it lacks necessary detail to be sufficiently informative. It earns its place but is too brief for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no behavioral details, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or how the slide is created/updated.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 20% (only _index described). The description adds no parameter explanations—e.g., what 'product', 'price', 'place', 'promotion' represent. The agent must infer meaning from names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool creates or updates a marketing 4P slide, specifying the resource (4P slide) and action (create/update). Among many sibling slides, this differentiates by the 4P framework.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other slide creation tools like createMarketingMixSlide or when to prefer update over create. The agent is left to infer context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description bears full burden. It mentions create/update but does not disclose what happens with empty tasks, side effects, or how 'placeholder' differs from a full Gantt chart. Behavior is vague.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is too brief to be fully informative. Balance between conciseness and completeness is lacking.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what a 'Gantt placeholder' is, how it behaves, or how to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (only _index described). The description adds no meaning to the tasks parameter or any others; it does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it creates or updates a simple Gantt placeholder, which is a clear verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like createMilestoneTimelineSlide, making the purpose somewhat ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes many other slide creation tools, but the description provides no context for choosing this one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions 'create or update,' hinting at mutation behavior, but discloses no other behavioral traits such as needed permissions, side effects (e.g., overwriting existing slides), rate limits, or response format. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but provides minimal context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (five words) but lacks substantive information. While no fluff exists, the brevity undermines usefulness; it should front-load key details like the role of milestones and the update capability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and only 33% schema description coverage, the description fails to provide a complete picture. It doesn't explain what a milestone timeline slide is, return value expectations, or how the update logic works beyond the _index hint in the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain any parameters meaningfully; it repeats the schema structure only implicitly. Schema coverage is 33% (only _index has a description), and the tool description adds no value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for missing parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Create or update a milestone timeline,' which clearly identifies the action (create/update) and the resource (milestone timeline). The name reinforces this. However, it doesn't specify what constitutes a milestone timeline or how it differs from other slide types among the many siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many other slide creation tools in the sibling list. There is no indication of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'create or update' but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authorization needs, side effects, or data handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is too sparse for the complexity of the tool. It lacks structure and fails to convey important usage details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain the matrix structure, scoring semantics, or update behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25%, yet the description adds no additional meaning to the parameters. It fails to explain how options, criteria, scores, and _index interact, leaving the agent to rely solely on schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates or updates an 'options vs criteria evaluation matrix', providing a specific verb and resource. While sibling tools exist for other matrices, this one is distinct enough in name and description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like createTwoByTwoMatrixSlide or other matrix creators. The description lacks context for choosing this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully convey behavior. It mentions 'create or update' but does not explain the update mechanism (e.g., use of _index parameter) or any side effects, permissions, or constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence), but it is under-specified. While not verbose, it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and minimal description, the tool lacks critical context. The behavior for updates is not described, and there is no information about the resulting slide or its integration into the presentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25% (only _index described). The description adds no parameter details beyond the schema. It does not clarify what xAxis, yAxis, or players represent, which is necessary given the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it creates or updates a competitive positioning map, which is a specific resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like createTwoByTwoMatrixSlide or createBcgMatrixSlide, leading to ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many similar sibling tools, the lack of usage context makes selection difficult.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. 'Create or update' implies mutation but does not mention side effects, resource dependencies, or any other behavioral constraints. The agent receives minimal insight into the tool's impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (5 words). While short, it is under-specified and fails to deliver necessary information. It does not earn its place as it lacks substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the many sibling slide tools, no output schema, and no behavioral information, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand the slide's purpose, required parameters, or expected outcomes. It feels incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 33%, and the description provides no parameter details. The input schema defines three parameters, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's brief type and constraints. Crucial information about 'scenarios' and 'impacts' is missing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create or update' and the resource 'scenario planning slide'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by its specific slide type, though it does not elaborate on what a scenario planning slide entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool or when to prefer alternative slide creation tools. The description lacks context on prerequisites or use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description only says 'create or update' but does not disclose any behavioral details such as side effects, permissions, or what happens to existing slides.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no waste, but too brief and lacks structure. Could front-load the purpose more effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 parameters (3 required arrays) and no output schema or annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the data structure or the update vs append behavior of _index.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only 25% of schema parameters have descriptions. The description does not explain the meaning of assets, liabilities, equity arrays or how they are used in the balance sheet.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it creates or updates a balance sheet summary placeholder, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the many sibling slide creation tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus the numerous other create slide tools. Lacks context for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'create or update' without detailing side effects, permissions, or what 'update' implies (e.g., overwriting existing content). The description adds minimal transparency beyond the inherent mutation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is too short to be helpful; it under-specifies the tool. While concise, it sacrifices necessary detail. The structure is flat and does not front-load critical information beyond the obvious.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters, no output schema, and a large set of sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It lacks context on the intended use, parameter behaviors (especially for 'points'), and what the placeholder entails (e.g., empty chart vs pre-populated).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only _index described). The tool description adds no meaning to parameters like 'points' or 'title'. It fails to explain what the bubble chart components (x, y, r, label) represent, leaving the agent to guess.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'create or update' and the resource 'bubble chart placeholder'. It is clear and specific to the tool's function. However, it does not explain what a 'placeholder' means in this context or distinguish it from sibling tools beyond the chart type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other slide-creation tools. The description lacks any contextual hints about prerequisites, typical use cases, or when to choose this specific placeholder type.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should explain behavioral traits. It only says 'create or update' but does not disclose that update behavior depends on the _index parameter, nor does it mention any side effects, error states, or constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While very short, the description fails to be informative. Conciseness here sacrifices necessary detail, making it insufficient for proper tool use.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (3 parameters, optional update, required array with minItems), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, the update mechanism, or provide any background on change curves.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is low (33%) yet the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It mentions 'stages' but does not define what a stage is or the expected format. The _index parameter has a helpful description in the schema, but the description does not leverage or reinforce it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it creates or updates a change curve with stages, identifying the specific resource (change curve slide). However, it does not differentiate this tool from numerous other create*Slide siblings, which all have similar patterns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other slide creation tools). No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for choosing this tool are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral details like whether updates overwrite existing slides, required permissions, or side effects. The _index parameter hints at update behavior but is not explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is too short for the tool's complexity. It does not earn its place as it provides minimal value and lacks structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, low schema description coverage, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, error handling, or the resulting slide structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (33%), and the description adds no additional meaning for the parameters. The 'items', 'quarters', and '_index' parameters are not described in text, leaving their semantics unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the verb 'create or update' and the resource 'quarterly roadmap', making the purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish from similar sibling tools like 'createProductRoadmapSlide' or 'createSustainabilityRoadmapSlide', which could lead to confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions 'create or update' but provides no detail on the update behavior, idempotency, or side effects. Without annotations, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, making it concise but lacking structure. It would benefit from brief points on parameters or behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is too minimal. It fails to provide enough context for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With only 20% schema description coverage, the description adds no parameter meaning. It does not explain the four required array parameters (stars, cashCows, questionMarks, dogs) or their roles in the BCG matrix.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: creating or updating a BCG matrix placeholder. It uses a specific verb-resource pair, but does not differentiate from many sibling tools for creating other slide types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like createGeMcKinseyMatrixSlide or createTwoByTwoMatrixSlide. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description lacks disclosure of update behavior, side effects, or return value. The term 'placeholder' is vague and not elaborated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single concise sentence, but potentially too brief to convey necessary context. Acceptable for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacks explanation of placeholder nature, no output schema, and insufficient detail for effective use among many similar slide tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning beyond schema for inflows and outflows, which have low schema coverage (33%). The array content is not explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (create/update) and the resource (cash flow summary placeholder), but does not distinguish it from similar sibling tools like createBalanceSheetSlide or createPLBreakdownSlide.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no mention of what a 'placeholder' implies versus a full slide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only says 'Create or update', implying mutation, but doesn't detail effects on existing slides, required permissions, reversibility, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise and front-loads the purpose. However, it sacrifices necessary detail, making it minimally acceptable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to specify return values, formatting, or integration with other slides, leaving the agent with incomplete information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 25% (only _index has a description). The tool description does not explain any parameters beyond the schema. For example, 'cadence' is left undefined, and 'audiences'/'channels' lack semantic context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates or updates a communication plan matrix, which is a specific slide type. It uses a clear verb and resource, distinguishing it from other slide creation tools by specifying the content type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling slide creation tools. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Create or update' implying mutation, but lacks details on side effects, overwrite behavior, permissions, or what happens to existing slides. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it omits essential information. It is front-loaded but sacrifices completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide sufficient context. The agent cannot determine what a compliance heatmap placeholder entails, what areas or levels represent, or the tool's overall workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 33% description coverage (only _index described). The description does not explain the meaning of 'areas' or 'levels', which are critical. The agent must guess their purpose, reducing the tool's usability.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the verb 'Create or update' and the resource 'compliance heatmap placeholder', which gives clear purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'createHeatmapPlaceholderSlide', which likely serves a similar generic function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling slide creation tools. The description offers no context for selection or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only says 'Create or update', implying mutation, but lacks details on side effects, idempotency, or constraints. With no annotations, more disclosure is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence), which is efficient, but it sacrifices essential information. It could benefit from slightly more detail without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error handling, or the context of use within a slide deck.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain any parameters. Schema coverage is low (33%), and the description adds no additional meaning to 'values' or 'behaviors' beyond their names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Create or update a culture and values slide', which clearly indicates the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the slide type, but does not elaborate on the slide's content beyond the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other slide creation tools (e.g., createAgendaSlide, createSwotSlide). Missing conditions for create vs update behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'create or update' implying mutation, but provides no details on side effects, idempotency, permissions, or what happens to existing data. The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It is not verbose, but could be broken into multiple sentences or bullet points for better readability. It is adequate but not exemplary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is too brief. It does not specify return value, pagination, or how updates differ from creation. The tool's behavior in a slide-producing context is under-specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only '_index' has a description). The description does not explain what 'entities' and 'categories' represent or how they relate to the map. Agents must rely on parameter names and required fields, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'create or update an ecosystem or partner map' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'createPartnershipMapSlide', which may cause confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'createPartnershipMapSlide', nor any prerequisites or exclusion criteria. The agent is left to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions 'Create or update', implying mutation, but does not elaborate on behavioral traits such as whether existing slides are replaced, if data is overwritten, or permissions required. With no annotations, the description should disclose more about the tool's effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but it is overly terse. While not wordy, the brevity sacrifices informational content that is important for tool selection and usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, 4 parameters (3 undocumented), and no behavioral details, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain what the tool returns, how errors are handled, or any side effects like slide ordering.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25% (only _index documented). The description adds no additional meaning for the required parameters (environmental, social, governance). It does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions by explaining what each array should contain or how they map to the slide.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create or update an ESG framework summary' clearly states the verb (create/update) and resource (ESG framework summary). It distinguishes from siblings like createSwotSlide by focusing on ESG, but does not explicitly differentiate the tool's scope from other framework-related slide creators.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool vs. alternatives like createBalancedScorecardSlide or createSustainabilityRoadmapSlide. There is no context on prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'create or update' without revealing whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, or has side effects. The parameter `_index` implies update behavior, but the description does not explain this.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is too terse to convey sufficient information. It sacrifices clarity for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (create/update with positional indexing, required array), the description is woefully incomplete. There is no output schema, no mention of return values, side effects, or how the placeholder integrates with funnel slides.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%: `_index` has a detailed schema description, but `stages` does not. The tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it fails to do so.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('create or update') and the resource ('funnel stages placeholder'). It is specific enough to distinguish from generic 'create' tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar funnel-related siblings like createPipelineFunnelSlide.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor does it specify any prerequisites or context for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'create or update' implying mutation, but does not disclose permissions required, side effects, or how the update mechanism works (the _index parameter in the schema provides some detail, but the description does not mention it).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but may be too terse. It front-loads the action but omits structural elements like parameter listing or behavioral notes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the four parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how rows and cols correspond to values, the format of a heatmap placeholder, or the consequences of the _index parameter for updates.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is low (25%), with only the _index parameter having a description. The description does not explain rows, cols, or values beyond their types, leaving the agent to infer that these define the heatmap's dimensions and data cells.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Create or update a heatmap placeholder,' which clearly identifies the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like createBarChartSlide or createLineChartSlide by specifying 'heatmap placeholder,' but does not elaborate on what a heatmap placeholder entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as createComplianceHeatmapSlide or other slide creators. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions 'create or update' without explaining what happens during update (e.g., overwrite fields, append, behavior with _index). The _index parameter's role is hinted in its schema but not in the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence) and front-loads the purpose, but it is too terse to be fully informative. It lacks structure or breakdown of key details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of 3 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, update mechanics, or provide enough context for an agent to use it correctly among dozens of similar tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (_index has a description). The description adds no information about 'kpis' or 'title' beyond their names. The schema shows kpis is an array of objects with label, value, delta, but the description does not elaborate on their purpose or format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create or update a slide highlighting key KPIs,' which identifies the verb (create/update) and resource (KPI highlight slide). However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like createOkrKpiDashboardSlide or createExecutiveSummarySlide, which may also involve KPIs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling slide creation tools, the absence of usage criteria or context makes it hard for an agent to choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only says 'Create or update' without explaining how update works, what happens on success, or any side effects. The `_index` parameter's behavior is described in the schema, not the description. The description fails to provide behavioral context beyond the generic statement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, making it concise. However, it is too brief to be effective, omitting important details. It is not wasteful but under-informative, which reduces its overall value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, many siblings, no annotations, no output schema), the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain what a Marimekko chart placeholder is, the purpose of each parameter, or the update behavior. The bare minimum is stated, but critical context is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not reference any parameters, so it adds no meaning beyond the input schema. The schema covers 33% of parameters with descriptions (only _index), but the tool description omits explaining what 'title' or 'categories' mean in the context of a Marimekko chart. This leaves the agent uninformed about critical required parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create or update a Marimekko chart placeholder' clearly states the verb (create/update) and resource (Marimekko chart placeholder). It distinguishes from sibling tools like createHeatmapPlaceholderSlide, though this is mostly achieved by the tool name itself rather than the description. The purpose is clear but lacks additional context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., createHeatmapPlaceholderSlide, createBubbleChartPlaceholderSlide). There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or when to create vs update. The description is too brief to offer any usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Create or update' but does not disclose side effects, permissions needed, or whether updates are destructive. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is efficient, but it omits important details. It earns its place but does not maximize the available space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of slide creation and the lack of output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what constitutes a marketing mix summary or how the update behavior works with the _index parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 33% (only _index has a description). The main description does not mention or explain any parameters, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage. The 'levers' parameter lacks explanation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create or update a marketing mix summary' clearly states the tool's verb (create/update) and resource (marketing mix summary). However, it does not distinguish it from the many sibling slide creation tools, which all follow the same pattern.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling slide creation tools. The description lacks any context about appropriate scenarios or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It mentions create or update but does not explain update behavior (e.g., what happens to existing slides) or any side effects. The term 'placeholder' is ambiguous.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with a single sentence, but it lacks context. It communicates the basic action but could benefit from more detail to be fully informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the large number of sibling tools, the description fails to differentiate. No output schema is provided, leaving return values unclear. The description is insufficient for an agent to confidently select this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning beyond the schema. With only 33% schema coverage (only _index has a description), the description should compensate for undocumented parameters like stages and values, but it does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (create/update) and resource (pipeline funnel placeholder). However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like createFunnelSlide or createInnovationFunnelSlide, which could lead to confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or scenarios. The description is too brief to guide appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'create or update' but does not explain what constitutes an update (e.g., based on _index), nor does it discuss permissions, reversibility, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at one sentence, but it lacks important information, making it under-specified. It earns a middle score for being brief but incomplete.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what a P&L breakdown placeholder is, how data is presented, or what happens during an update, leaving significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (_index has a description). The description does not explain what 'categories' and 'values' represent in the context of a P&L breakdown, failing to add meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verb 'Create or update' and resource 'P&L breakdown placeholder,' which clearly identifies the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling slide tools by naming a specific slide type. However, it lacks detail on what a 'P&L breakdown' entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other slide creation tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description says 'create or update' but doesn't explain update behavior, side effects, or limitations. Lacks detail on what 'placeholder' entails.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise but omits important details. Not overly long but insufficient for completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, description is too minimal. More context needed on steps structure and update behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (only _index has description). Description adds no parameter info beyond schema. Steps parameter lacks semantic clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'create or update' and resource 'pricing waterfall placeholder'. However, there's ambiguity between 'slide' in the name and 'placeholder' in description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like 'createWaterfallSlide' or others. No prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'create or update' without explaining side effects (e.g., whether updating overwrites existing data, or if permissions are needed). The _index parameter hint in schema is not reflected in description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence). While concise, it omits crucial context (e.g., that it creates a slide), making it under-specified. Every sentence should earn its place, but this one leaves too much unsaid.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool creates/updates a slide with revenue model content, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the slide fits into the presentation, the role of the _index parameter in positioning, or the return value. The schema partially describes parameters but lacks narrative context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33%, and the description adds no parameter-level information beyond listing 'streams' and 'pricing notes.' It does not specify format, constraints, or relationships between parameters, failing to compensate for the schema's low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Create or update revenue streams and pricing notes,' which identifies the action and subject. However, it does not explicitly mention that the tool creates or updates a slide, relying on the tool name for that context. Given sibling tools are all slide creators, the purpose is clear but could be more explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other slide creation tools (e.g., createPricingWaterfallSlide). The description lacks any context about scenarios or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions 'Create or update' but gives no details about update semantics (e.g., whether it overwrites or merges), side effects, or required permissions. Without annotations, this is insufficiently transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff, but it omits critical details. It is concise at the expense of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of 3 parameters, numerous sibling tools, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the purpose of 'segments' or 'descriptors' or the tool's overall role.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Out of 3 parameters, only '_index' has a schema description; the description adds no additional meaning. With only 33% schema coverage, the tool fails to compensate by describing parameter roles or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Create or update') and the resource ('customer segmentation slide'), making the purpose identifiable. However, with many sibling 'create*Slide' tools, it does not explicitly differentiate itself beyond the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like createSwotSlide or createPersonasSlide. The description lacks contextual cues for usage decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'create or update' but does not explain what updating entails, whether existing data is overwritten, or any side effects. The agent lacks critical behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise but overly sparse. It lacks detail but has no filler. It is appropriately front-loaded but insufficient in content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 8 parameters (7 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not specify input formats, validation rules, or return behavior, making it inadequate for correct tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 13% (only _index has a description). The description adds no meaning to the 7 required string parameters (e.g., what 'staff' or 'sharedValues' represent). The agent cannot understand parameter semantics from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Create or update') and a specific resource ('McKinsey 7S slide'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like createBalancedScorecardSlide by naming a unique slide type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other slide creators). There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only states 'create or update' without explaining the update mechanism (e.g., using _index). It does not disclose side effects, such as whether an existing slide is replaced or modified, nor any authorization or rate limit information. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but fails to provide sufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence), which is efficient, but it lacks necessary details to be fully useful. It sacrifices completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has two parameters, one required, no output schema, and a complex nested structure, the description is too minimal. It does not explain how _index controls append vs update, what happens when stakeholders are provided, or what the tool returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. The schema already defines stakeholders with influence, interest, and name fields, and the description merely restates 'stakeholder influence-interest map.' With only 50% schema description coverage (missing description for the stakeholders array), the description does not compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it creates or updates a stakeholder influence-interest map, which is a specific verb-resource combination. The name and description align, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like createPositioningMap or createBcgMatrix, which are similar in concept.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention contexts, prerequisites, or scenarios where a stakeholder map is appropriate compared to other slide creation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It only states 'Create or update' without explaining side effects, overwriting behavior, or what a 'placeholder' entails. The _index parameter implies update capability but is not mentioned in the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, which is efficient but lacks important details. Not overly verbose but could include more useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters including a required array, no output schema, and many similar siblings, the description is insufficient. It does not specify the expected content or output, leaving gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (33%), and the description adds no explanation for 'roles' or 'tiers'. The agent cannot infer what values to provide beyond the schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the action ('Create or update') and the resource ('support organization model placeholder'), which is specific among many sibling slide creation tools. However, 'placeholder' is somewhat vague, but overall clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other slide creators. There is no context on prerequisites or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Create or update', implying a mutation, but does not state side effects, permission requirements, or how the tool interacts with existing slides. The brevity leaves significant uncertainty about the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundancy, which is concise. However, it is too terse to be informative; conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity. It earns a middle score due to efficient wording but insufficient substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and complex purpose (creating/updating slide content), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, the relationship between questions and summaries, or how the tool fits into a larger presentation workflow. Critical information is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 33% (only _index has a description). The tool description does not explain the 'questions' and 'summaries' parameters, which are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no value beyond the schema for these parameters, and the low coverage is not compensated.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool creates or updates a 'survey results summary', which is a specific resource. The verb is clear, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'createSwotSlide' by focusing on survey results. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from other slide creation tools, but the name provides enough context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling slide creation tools. The description does not explain scenarios for creating vs updating, nor does it mention prerequisites or post-conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool can both create and update, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, with no annotations present, it fails to mention any side effects, restrictions, or dependencies (e.g., does it require an active presentation? What happens to existing slides?).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but it could include more informative details without becoming verbose. It adequately conveys the core action but at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the tool's purpose beyond the name, nor does it describe return values or how the tool integrates with other slides in a presentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 20%, and the description does not clarify the meaning of the four required arrays (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats). It does not explain how these map to the SWOT matrix quadrants, leaving the agent to infer from the parameter names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create or update a SWOT matrix,' identifying the specific resource (SWOT matrix) and action (create/update). However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like createBcgMatrixSlide or createTwoByTwoMatrixSlide, which also create matrix slides.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as an existing presentation, or when not to use it (e.g., when a different matrix format is needed).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'create or update' but does not explain idempotency, side effects, permissions needed, or what 'placeholder' implies (e.g., whether it can be finalized later).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words. However, it is too sparse to be fully helpful, sacrificing completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no output schema, no annotations, and 3 parameters with low documentation coverage, the description fails to provide enough context for an AI agent to understand what the slide represents or how to set parameters correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only '_index' is described). The description adds no context for 'values' or 'sources', leaving their meaning unclear in the context of a synergy capture plan placeholder.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates or updates a 'synergy capture plan placeholder', which is a specific resource. However, among 80+ sibling slide creation tools, it does not differentiate what makes this slide distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It says 'create or update' but does not explain what 'update' entails (e.g., overwrite, merge, append), nor does it describe side effects, required permissions, or how existing slides are affected. The _index parameter hints at positioning but is not explained in the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence, 10 words) and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. It is not 'minimum viable' because key behavioral and parameter information is missing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It does not specify what the numbers represent, how updates work, or how the tool fits into the slide creation workflow. An AI agent would lack sufficient context to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 20% (only _index has a description). The description adds no meaning to tam, sam, som, or notes. Even though tam/sam/som are common acronyms, the description does not explain their meanings (e.g., Total Addressable Market, etc.) or expected units/format. The count-inflation baseline would be 3 if coverage were high, but here coverage is low and description does not compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it creates or updates a TAM/SAM/SOM slide, which is a specific resource type among many sibling slide creation tools. The verb 'Create or update' is explicit, and the resource 'market size (TAM/SAM/SOM) slide' distinguishes it from other slide types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other slide creation tools. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or alternative tools. Given many sibling tools, explicit usage criteria would help differentiate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only mentions 'create or update' without disclosing side effects, permissions, or impact on existing slides.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise but overly minimal, sacrificing helpful detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (3 parameters, no output schema) and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete; it does not mention required parameters or usage patterns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (33%), and the description adds no information about parameters beyond the word 'phases', failing to explain items or the update mechanism.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates or updates a technology roadmap with phases, which distinguishes it from other roadmap slides like product or quarterly roadmaps.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any prerequisites or context for its use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. 'Create or update' implies mutation but no details on permissions, side effects, or whether updates overwrite existing slides. The _index parameter hint in schema provides some transparency but description does not reinforce it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is short and to the point but lacks important details. Could be improved by expanding on quadrant structure without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of quadrants (nested array of 4 items) and no output schema, the description does not explain the expected format, item ordering, or axis role. Incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25% (only _index described). Description does not explain the meaning of xAxis, yAxis, or quadrants beyond token names. For a tool with three required parameters lacking schema descriptions, this is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool creates or updates a 2x2 matrix with quadrant items. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling matrix tools like BCG or GeMcKinsey, which share similar structure.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not specify prerequisites, typical use cases, or when update behavior via _index is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'create or update' but does not explain what 'update' implies (e.g., whether it modifies an existing slide collection, replaces content, or merges). No side effects, permissions, or constraints are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at 9 words, but it sacrifices completeness. It front-loads the core purpose but omits critical details about parameters and behavior. A slightly longer description with structured information would improve utility without losing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, 2 required, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to construct the primary and support arrays, what the output slide looks like, or how the update logic works. The context signals indicate low schema coverage and no output schema, so the description should fill these gaps but does not.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only '_index' is documented). The description adds no meaning for 'primary' or 'support' beyond their types (array of strings). It fails to explain what values they should contain (e.g., activity names, descriptions) or their role in the value chain, despite the tool name hinting at primary and support activities.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the verb ('create or update') and resource ('value chain with primary and support activities'), matching the tool's name. It distinguishes this tool from siblings that create other slide types (e.g., createSwotSlide, createAgendaSlide), though it does not explicitly contrast with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites or context. The sibling list of 80+ tools underscores the need for guidance, but none is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'create or update' implying mutation, but does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, or limitations. This is insufficient for a creation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no fluff. It sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, but remains structurally efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, annotations, and the complexity of a balanced scorecard slide, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what perspectives are, how items relate, or any constraints, leaving the agent with minimal context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 50% of parameters with descriptions (only _index is documented). The description text adds no information about the perspectives parameter or its structure, failing to compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates or updates a balanced scorecard slide, indicating the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like createKpiHighlightSlide or createExecutiveSummarySlide, missing contextual nuance.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about appropriate scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only states 'create or update' without explaining the update semantics, effect on existing content, or implications of the 'placeholder' concept.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, very concise. However, it could be slightly restructured to improve clarity—e.g., separating create vs. update behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no output schema and minimal annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain what a 'circular economy map placeholder' is, how the update works, or what the result looks like, which is critical for a slide creation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. Schema coverage is only 50% (only _index has a description), and the core 'loops' parameter is left unexplained despite being required with a minItems constraint.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates or updates a circular economy loop map placeholder, distinguishing it from sibling slide creators. However, the term 'placeholder' introduces ambiguity about whether a functional map or a template is produced.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With over 80 sibling slide creation tools, the absence of usage context or exclusions is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'create or update' but does not describe side effects, like whether existing content is replaced or merged, or any destructive behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the purpose. While efficient, it sacrifices necessary detail that could be added without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters (one required), no output schema, and many siblings, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the slide content, array usage, or update mechanics, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 50% of parameters (only _index has a description). The tool description adds no extra meaning about the 'initiatives' array or updates behavior, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates or updates a CSR initiatives slide, using specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from numerous sibling slide creation tools like createEsgFrameworkSlide, which may have overlapping purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite information, which is crucial given the many similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'create or update' and the schema reveals update via _index, but the description does not explain side effects (e.g., slide creation/addition, positional updates) or requirements (e.g., existing presentation). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise and to the point. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it omits important details that could be added without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 params, required array, optional nested array), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify the update mechanism, expected output, or structure of touchpoints. An agent would lack sufficient context to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (33%), only _index has a description. The description adds no parameter details beyond naming 'stages and touchpoints.' It does not explain the nested structure of touchpoints (array of arrays) or the minItems constraint on stages. The schema provides some info, but the description should compensate and does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Create or update a customer journey with stages and touchpoints,' which clearly indicates the verb (create or update) and resource (customer journey). The tool name suggests it is a slide, and sibling tools are all slide creators, so the purpose is clear. However, it does not explicitly mention 'slide' in the description, slightly reducing clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like createAgendaSlide or other slide tools. The description does not specify context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'create or update' but does not explain side effects, permissions, or behavior when updating (e.g., whether it replaces the slide or modifies in place). The '_index' parameter's role in updating is only described in the schema, not in the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 7 words, which is concise and front-loaded with the key action. However, it may be too terse given the tool's complexity and the need for parameter explanation, but it fits within the constraints of being concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is too minimal given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and 80+ sibling tools. It fails to explain how to create vs. update, what the 'title' parameter does, or how the slide is positioned. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (the '_index' parameter has a description). The tool's description does not mention any of the three parameters ('title', '_index', 'drivers'). It adds no meaning beyond what is in the schema, leaving the agent to infer that 'drivers' are the list items, but 'title' and '_index' remain unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Create or update a list of market growth drivers.' This clearly identifies the action (create or update) and the resource (market growth drivers list). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are all different slide types, but does not elaborate on the slide context, which is implicit from the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among 80+ sibling slide creation tools, there is no indication of when market drivers are appropriate or when to choose this over a similar tool like 'createDriverTreeSlide'. The agent has no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions 'create or update' without explaining what update means, side effects, or whether it's idempotent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence of 7 words, making it extremely concise. However, it sacrifices informativeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain what the tool produces (e.g., slide type) or how parameters affect the outcome.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is low (33%); only _index has a description. The description does not explain 'npv' or 'assumptions', leaving their meaning and usage unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'Create or update' and resource 'NPV summary placeholder', clearly identifying the tool's action and object. However, 'placeholder' is vague and does not differentiate it from similar slide tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other slide creation tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, or what 'update' entails beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded with action and object. However, brevity sacrifices clarity on behavior and usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema and many sibling tools. The description lacks details on what happens after creation/update, expected return, or how nodes should be structured. Incomplete for an agent to use reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%; the only additional description is for '_index' in the schema. The description does not explain the 'nodes' parameter structure or provide any semantic help beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create or update' and the resource 'simple org chart placeholder'. It is specific enough to differentiate from sibling slide creation tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Lacks context about prerequisites or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden but only says 'create or update' without elaborating on update behavior, side effects, or required permissions. The _index parameter's update capability is not highlighted in the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a RACI matrix and the lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the concept of RACI, how tasks and roles interact, or what the assignments parameter represents.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 25% (only _index described). The description adds no context for tasks, roles, or assignments, failing to clarify their meaning in a RACI matrix.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates or updates a RACI matrix, specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like createSwotSlide, though the resource name makes it unique.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other slide creators). There is no mention of prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. The description states 'Create or update' but does not clarify whether updates overwrite existing content, require specific permissions, or have any side effects. There is no mention of rate limits, destructive actions, or authorization needs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of six words, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices informativeness for brevity; it could add a few more words to explain key aspects without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given three parameters, no output schema, and only 33% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what a 'sensitivity analysis placeholder' is, how the parameters are used together, or what the tool returns. The agent lacks information to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is only 33% (only '_index' has a description). The tool description does not clarify the meaning of 'variables' and 'scenarios' parameters beyond the schema's type constraints. The agent may not know that 'variables' refer to input variable names and 'scenarios' to scenario labels, which is critical for correct usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create or update a sensitivity analysis placeholder.' This identifies the verb (create/update) and resource (sensitivity analysis placeholder), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'createSwotSlide' or 'createPorterFiveForcesSlide'. However, the term 'placeholder' is ambiguous, potentially implying it is not a full-fledged slide.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not include any context about prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where another tool might be more appropriate. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions create/update behavior but does not describe side effects, permission needs, or what happens to existing slides. The detail about updating based on _index is already in the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose. It is front-loaded with the key verb and object. While concise, it could expand slightly on the role of contacts without becoming overly long.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters, low schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not clarify what constitutes a 'contact' (e.g., how name and email are displayed), the effect of multiple contacts, or the resulting slide layout.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 17%, yet the description adds no additional meaning to parameters. The parameters url, name, email, qrImageUrl, and message could benefit from context that is missing. The schema has a detailed description for _index, but others are bare.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates or updates a closing slide with a thank-you message and contacts. It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource type, but doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling slide creation tools beyond the type of slide.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this should be preferred over other slide creation tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'create or update' but does not elaborate on side effects, required permissions, or the implications of the _index parameter for update vs append. The mutation behavior is implicit but not fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality. It avoids extraneous text and front-loads the purpose. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters (3 required), no annotations, no output schema, and many siblings, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the 3C framework, the expected content of each array, or how the _index parameter controls update vs append. An agent would lack context to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 25%, meaning most parameters (company, customer, competitor) lack description in the schema. The tool description does not compensate by explaining what each array should contain or any formatting requirements. The _index parameter is described in the schema, but the description adds no extra semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool creates or updates a 3C (Company, Customer, Competitor) slide. The verb+resource pair is specific and the '3C' identifier helps distinguish from sibling slide creation tools, though it could be more explicit about the framework's purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like createSwotSlide or other slide templates. There is no mention of typical scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'create or update' but fails to explain the update mechanism via _index or the implications (e.g., replacing existing content). The lack of detail on creation context and side effects reduces transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, it lacks structure and could front-load more key information like the update behavior. It earns points for brevity but loses slightly for being too brief.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide comprehensive context. It fails to explain how the slide is created/updated, what the return value is, or the meaning of 'buckets' and 'fixedVsVariable'. Essential details are missing for an AI to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only _index has a description). The tool description adds no meaningful explanation for parameters like 'buckets' or 'fixedVsVariable'; it only vaguely mentions 'buckets and notes' despite 'notes' not being a parameter. This does not compensate for the schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Create or update a cost structure with buckets and notes' which clearly indicates the tool's function. The tool name and sibling tools confirm it's a slide creation tool for cost structures, distinguishing it from other slide types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for creating or updating a cost structure slide, but no explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its many siblings. The context of slide creation is clear, but without exclusion criteria or alternatives, score is adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions 'create or update', implying mutability based on the '_index' parameter, but does not disclose side effects, error conditions, or what constitutes an update vs. creation. The schema provides some behavioral cues (e.g., default append behavior), but the description adds minimal transparency beyond that.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at 6 words, which is front-loaded with the action. However, it is arguably too terse, omitting necessary context that could be added without much length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters (one required) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what a 'placeholder' is, how 'counts' relates to 'stages', or what the tool returns. For a tool with many siblings, more context is needed for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With only 33% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not. It fails to explain the meaning of 'stages' or 'counts', leaving the agent to infer from names alone. The '_index' parameter is the only one described in the schema, and the description adds nothing to aid understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates or updates an innovation funnel placeholder, specifying both the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'createFunnelSlide' or 'createPipelineFunnelSlide'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other funnel slides) or any usage context. The description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description does not disclose behavior beyond the basic function, such as what happens if images are omitted or the naming convention for the output file.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one clause) but at the cost of completeness. It earns its place but could be expanded without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It omits key behavioral details that the schema partially covers, but the description should summarize the tool's operation more fully.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool combines images to create a PDF, which is distinct from the sibling tools that create slides. However, it could be more specific about the input being image files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description lacks context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only says 'Create or update' but does not explain behavioral traits like idempotency, merging behavior for updates, or validation of blocks. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose important behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, though slightly more detail could improve completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should better explain the update mechanism and the blocks structure. The brief mention of '9 blocks' is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds that the blocks object represents a 9-block Business Model Canvas, which provides context beyond the schema's generic definition. However, it does not specify expected keys or format, and the _index parameter is only described in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates or updates a Business Model Canvas slide with 9 blocks, matching the tool name. It distinguishes from sibling slide creation tools by specifying the slide type, though it does not explicitly differentiate from other similar create* tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor on whether to use create or update. The description lacks context for when this slide type is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'Create or update' but does not explain that update behavior depends on the _index parameter (e.g., append vs replace). The description omits key behavioral details such as whether updates are incremental or full replacement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no wasted words. Could benefit from slight restructuring to separate create vs update behavior, but remains efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain what a capability maturity model is, how levels are interpreted, or how the _index parameter controls update vs append. Missing context for effective agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (only _index has description; capabilities lacks field-level descriptions). The phrase '(1–5)' adds meaning to the 'level' field within capabilities, which is otherwise undocumented. This partially compensates but does not fully clarify the array structure or required fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create or update a capability maturity model (1–5)' clearly specifies the verb (create/update) and resource (capability maturity model) with scale. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like createDigitalMaturitySlide, which may have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among 80+ sibling tools, no explicit conditions, exclusions, or references to similar tools are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'create or update' and mentions the _index parameter for positioning, but does not explain whether the slide is fully replaced, what happens to existing content, or any side effects on other slides.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (two sentences), front-loaded with the main action and purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence provides value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and the large set of sibling tools, the description lacks sufficient context. It does not specify return behavior, handling of edge cases, or how to decide among similar slide tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates or updates a slide that presents a hypothesis, and mentions implications and next steps. It specifies the verb 'create or update' and the resource 'slide', but does not distinguish it from the many other slide creation tools among siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like createExecutiveSummarySlide or createKeyMessageWithSupportsSlide. The agent must infer from the name and description, which is insufficient given the large sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'create or update' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authorization requirements, side effects (e.g., overwriting existing slides), rate limits, or whether the operation is reversible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but may be too brief. It lacks important details that could be accommodated without verbosity, earning a middling score for structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error states, or the behavior when updating versus creating, leaving the agent with insufficient context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33%, yet the description does not explain any parameters or their semantics. The description adds no value beyond what the input schema provides, leaving agents to infer parameter meaning from names and schemas alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (create or update) and the specific resource (post-merger integration plan placeholder), making it distinct from sibling slide creation tools. The resource type 'PMI plan placeholder' is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other slide creation tools like createGanttSimpleSlide). It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Create or update' with no details on destructive actions, authorization needs, or side effects. The update behavior via _index parameter is not mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, with no fluff. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, which limits its helpfulness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 3 parameters, required metrics, no annotations, and no output schema. The description fails to explain important aspects like valid values for status/target, the update logic, or what the tool returns, making it insufficient for confident use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 33% (only _index has description). The description does not clarify the meaning of 'title', 'metrics', or the structure of tiles. It adds no value beyond the schema's minimal info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates or updates an OKR/KPI dashboard with tiles. The action verb 'Create or update' and resource 'OKR/KPI dashboard' are specific, and the tool is distinct from many sibling tools like 'createKpiHighlightSlide' which focuses on a single metric.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative slide creators such as createKpiHighlightSlide or createBalancedScorecardSlide. The description lacks context for selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden, but it only states 'create or update' without disclosing side effects, permissions, or how updates are identified. The _index parameter behavior is described in the schema, but the description adds no further behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence), which aids readability, but it is too brief and lacks front-loaded critical details like the dual create/update capability. It could be restructured to be more informative without extra length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 params, many siblings, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain what a partnership ecosystem map is, how slides are organized, or what the return value is, making it hard for the agent to fully understand usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (33%), and the description does not explain the partners or categories parameters beyond their existence. It adds no semantics that the schema does not already provide, failing to compensate for the gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates or updates a partnership ecosystem map. The verb 'Create or update' combined with the specific resource 'partnership ecosystem map' is precise and distinguishes it from siblings like createEcosystemMapSlide and createStakeholderMapSlide.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its many siblings. There is no mention of when it is appropriate, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent without enough context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions the tool can create or update slides but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether updates are destructive, permission requirements, or rate limits. The _index parameter's behavior is detailed in the schema but not in the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no redundant information. The description is efficient but could benefit from a clearer structure front-loading the key operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, and the description does not explain what the tool returns. Given 4 parameters and 2 required, the description should state the result of the operation. The context of sibling tools is not leveraged for completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, simply stating 'optional detailed breakdowns' which aligns with the 'details' parameter. No significant semantic enrichment.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb (create/update), resource (slide), and the specific principle (pyramid principle) with key message and supports. However, the sibling 'createKeyMessageWithSupportsSlide' likely overlaps, and no explicit differentiation is provided.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'createKeyMessageWithSupportsSlide'. The description does not state when not to use it or provide any usage prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions both 'Create or update,' indicating the tool can modify an existing slide via the _index parameter. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does not disclose details like whether updates are incremental or destructive, or if there are any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, making it very concise and easy to parse. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it could contain more useful information without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the slide looks like after creation, how errors are handled, or how this tool differs from its many siblings. The agent would lack critical context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes two parameters: 'risks' (array of objects) and '_index' (integer). Schema description coverage is 50%—only _index has a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning to these parameters; it does not explain the risk object structure or how _index controls update vs. append. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Create or update a risk register with mitigations,' which clearly indicates the tool's function. The tool name includes 'Slide,' implying it creates a presentation slide, but the description does not explicitly mention 'slide,' which could cause ambiguity. However, the verb 'create/update' and resource 'risk register' are specific enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., createSwotSlide, createPorterFiveForcesSlide). The description lacks any contextual cues or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description hints at both creation and update ('create or update'), aligning with the _index parameter's behavior. However, it does not explicitly disclose that updates target existing slides via the _index parameter, nor does it address any side effects or permissions. Without annotations, transparency is adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with the verb front-loaded. It could include more context without becoming verbose, but it is not wasteful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with three parameters (one required) and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the structure or typical use of 'phases' and 'actions', and does not clarify the slide's purpose in the context of sustainability roadmaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning to the parameters beyond the schema. Schema coverage is low (33%)—only the _index parameter has a description. The description does not explain what 'phases' or 'actions' represent, leaving the agent with incomplete understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('create or update') and resource ('sustainability roadmap'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'createProductRoadmapSlide' or 'createTechRoadmapSlide', which have similar purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions 'create or update' but fails to disclose side effects, overwrite behavior, required permissions, or the nature of a 'placeholder'. The behavioral traits are opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It conveys the core purpose but omits any additional details that could help the agent. It is borderline too brief.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With three parameters, no output schema, and no behavioral details, the description is incomplete for an effective tool invocation. It does not explain what a 'placeholder' means, how stages/targets are used, or how the update behavior works.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is low (33%), with only _index having a description. The description adds context that the tool is for M&A pipeline, but does not explain what 'stages' and 'targets' represent or their semantics. Some value added, but insufficient to compensate for low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates or updates an M&A pipeline placeholder, using a specific verb and resource. Among numerous sibling tools for different slide types, this distinguishes itself by focusing on M&A pipeline slides.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like createPipelineFunnelSlide or other slide creators. No explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'create or update' but does not explain the update mechanism (e.g., overwriting), impacts on existing slides, or what 'placeholder' implies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous information. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters including nested objects and no output schema, the description is far too minimal. It lacks details on how to structure placements, valid row/col values, and the function of competitiveStrength/industryAttractiveness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25% (only _index described). The description adds no meaning for placements, competitiveStrength, or industryAttractiveness. These parameters are critical for usage but remain unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates or updates a GE-McKinsey 3x3 matrix placeholder, specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like createBcgMatrixSlide by naming the specific matrix type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like other matrix creators. No prerequisites, usage context, or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It indicates a mutation (create or update) but provides no details on side effects, permissions, or what happens to existing slides. The schema description for _index adds some context, but the description itself lacks behavioral depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks sufficient detail. While not verbose, it could include more context without becoming overly long, such as indicating typical use cases or parameter behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is minimal, not explaining what a 'placeholder' means, return values, or how the update functionality works. It is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only _index described). The description does not explain the meaning of 'metrics' (beyond array of strings, min 3) or 'notes', nor does it clarify their roles. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving parameter semantics unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (create or update) and resource (sales dashboard placeholder). Among many sibling tools for different slide types, 'sales dashboard' distinguishes it effectively, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The name and description imply it's for sales dashboard slides, but no scenarios or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions both create and update behavior, aligning with the _index parameter from schema. However, no annotations exist, and the description does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that conveys the core action. It is efficient but could be slightly expanded for clarity without significant bloat.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain what the tool returns or the overall slide structure. Given many similar sibling tools, more context is needed for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only 25% of parameters have schema descriptions (just _index). The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, leaving the agent to infer meaning from parameter names ('before', 'after', 'title') and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('create or update') and the resource ('before vs after comparison slide'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the slide type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other slide creation tools. It does not explain scenarios or prerequisites, leaving the agent with no decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description notes 'create or update', indicating mutation, but no annotations are provided. It lacks details on behavior like slide replacement or error conditions, but does not contradict annotations (none exist).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded but could include a bit more context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a structured slide creation tool with no output schema and many sibling tools, the description does not explain the five forces parameters or how to use them. It lacks completeness for an agent unfamiliar with the framework.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is low (17%), and the description adds no parameter explanation beyond the schema's minimal descriptions. The five forces parameters are listed by name but their meaning is assumed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates or updates a Porter's Five Forces slide, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from many sibling tools that create other slide types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use Porter's Five Forces versus other frameworks or slide types. The description does not provide context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description only indicates mutation ('create or update') without disclosing side effects, permissions, or limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key action and object, no redundant words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacks explanation of what a shareholder value driver tree is, how drivers are used, or how _index updates work; incomplete for a 2-param tool with no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 50% of parameters (_index detailed, drivers lacks semantics); description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'create or update' and the specific resource 'shareholder value driver tree', distinguishing it from the sibling 'createDriverTreeSlide'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'createDriverTreeSlide'; no exclusions or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, placing full burden on the description. It says 'create or update' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether updates overwrite, append, or require specific authorization. The schema's `_index` parameter clarifies this, but the description does not reference it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, its brevity sacrifices behavioral and usage details, making it slightly less effective than a more balanced concise statement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 2 parameters (one array), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks usage guidance, does not explain the `_index` update/append behavior, and provides no information about return values. The description fails to give an AI agent sufficient context for correct tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%: `_index` is well-documented in the schema, while `personas` lacks a description. The description adds 'customer persona cards' giving high-level meaning to `personas`, but does not detail its structure or complement the schema fully. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description provides some added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Create or update customer persona cards.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling slide creation tools by specifying the resource type (persona cards).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when creating or updating persona slides but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or context for sibling tools are given, matching the 'implied usage' level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description mentions create/update behavior via _index but does not disclose what happens to existing slides, authentication needs, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. The update semantics are partially inferred but not fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently describes the slide structure. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists. The description covers purpose and high-level slide structure but does not mention return values, error conditions, or format of driver branches beyond what the schema provides. It is adequate for a two-parameter tool but lacks completeness for a slide creation operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both metric and drivers. The description adds context about the slide structure (key metric top, drivers branching below), but the _index parameter is not explained in the description. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description adds modest value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create or update one slide in the presentation that visualizes a driver tree.' It specifies a distinct slide type and action, differentiating it from other slide creation tools in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for driver tree visualization but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like createIssueTreeSlide or other tree-related slides. No when-not or contextual guidance provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'create or update' but does not disclose limitations, side effects, or what happens when an invalid index is provided. The schema covers the _index behavior, but the description lacks additional behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (two sentences), front-loads the key action and resource, and avoids unnecessary details. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description adequately explains the tool's purpose and input requirements. However, with no output schema and no mention of return values or side effects, it leaves some gaps, especially for a mutation tool. Overall, it is minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage). The description reinforces the purpose of 'headline' and 'supports' but adds little new semantic value beyond what the schema offers.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates or updates a slide emphasizing a single key message with headline and bullet points. It effectively distinguishes from the many sibling slide creation tools that target specific presentation structures.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises that the headline should state the main message and that at least two supporting bullet points are required, which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes create/update behavior and mentions the _index parameter for positioning. No annotations provided, so description carries the full burden; however, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting existing slides), permissions, or error handling. Adequate but could be improved.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value; no fluff or redundant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic operation (create/update, parameter constraints) and the purpose. Missing details on return values or error states, but for a simple slide creation tool, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description only adds a qualitative suggestion ('clear title and 3-7 concise bullet points') which is already captured by minItems/maxItems. No additional semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool creates or updates an executive summary slide, specifying structure (title and 3-7 bullet points). The name and description distinguish it from numerous sibling slide tools (e.g., createAgendaSlide, createSwotSlide).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies it's for summaries, but lacks when-not or context about other slide types. Adequate but minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, rate limits, or return behavior beyond 'Create or update'. The _index parameter behavior is left to the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences: first states the action, second adds detail. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers the main purpose and structure, but lacks behavioral transparency (no annotations) and does not explain the update behavior or return value. Adequate but with gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining branches should be 'MECE sub-issues' and the root issue is at the top, providing context beyond the schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verbs ('Create or update') and resource ('slide in the presentation that visualizes an issue tree'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like createDriverTreeSlide by mentioning 'issue tree' and 'MECE sub-issues'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies usage for problem structuring with 'to structure the problem'. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses 'create or update' behavior and append logic for _index, adding value beyond schema; no annotations present.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two efficient sentences with all essential information, no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Sufficient for a create/update tool with fully documented schema; lacks usage context but covers purpose and parameter behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and descriptions already explain title and items; description doesn't add new parameter meaning beyond schema baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create or update one slide in the presentation that shows the agenda' with specific bullet point content, distinguishing it from other slide creation tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like createExecutiveSummarySlide; usage is implied but not differentiated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 mentions 'Create or update' which implies mutability, but it does not disclose details such as whether updates are destructive, merge behavior, or required permissions. The parameter _index in the schema covers insertion/update logic, but the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond that.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence front-loads the purpose and framework, with zero waste. It is optimally concise for an agent to quickly understand the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the moderate complexity (5 parameters, 4 required) and full schema coverage, the description is adequate. It does not explain return values (no output schema), but for a single-slide creation tool, this is acceptable. Minor gaps like ordering effects are not addressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter described. The tool description merely reiterates the parameter names within the SCQA framework, adding no additional semantic meaning or usage examples beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Create or update'), the resource ('one slide'), and the specific framework ('SCQA: Situation, Complication, Question, and Answer'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from the many sibling slide creation tools targeting different frameworks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for SCQA storyline slides but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided, but the context is clear for its intended purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It mentions 'create or update' and the required slide elements, but does not elaborate on the update behavior (e.g., that it only updates if _index is provided) or any side effects. Since the input schema covers _index behavior, transparency is adequate but not enriched.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first states purpose and requirements, the second gives usage context. No unnecessary words; efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and usage context. It could mention the result of the operation, but this is not critical given the schema and typical slide creation pattern.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds the requirement that the slide must include both a heading and subheading, but this is consistent with the required fields. No additional semantic detail beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates or updates a section divider slide with a large heading and subtitle. It explicitly distinguishes this from other slide types by specifying the slide's role as a section separator.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear usage context: 'Use this when the user wants to create a single slide that clearly introduces or separates a new section.' While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the context differentiates it from the many sibling tools dedicated to other slide types.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations available. Description discloses that it sets a directory for output, implying state mutation but does not detail side effects like overwriting or permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no redundancy. Efficiently communicates purpose and usage pattern.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple tool with one parameter, no output schema. Description covers purpose and call timing. Lacks error handling or return value info, but adequate for complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only parameter 'directoryName' with full schema coverage (100%). Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool specifies a directory for session output. Differentiates from sibling tools, which all create slides or PDFs, by being a configuration tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs when to call: before creating a slide and again for the next new slide. Lacks explicit exclusions but provides sufficient context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses that the tool can both create and update slides based on the _index parameter. It explains the append vs update behavior clearly, though it omits details on permissions or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately adds key behavioral detail about updating.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior and parameter roles. It could be more explicit about input validation (e.g., minItems 2 for groups) but the schema covers that.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the MECE concept and that groups consist of a label and bullet lists. This compensates for the schema lacking a description for the 'groups' parameter (67% coverage).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates or updates a slide that organizes items into MECE groups, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which create different slide types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for MECE grouping but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like createIssueTreeSlide or other structuring slides. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mulmocast-vision MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/receptron/mulmocast-vision/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/receptron/mulmocast-vision)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mulmocast-vision MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/receptron/mulmocast-vision/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/receptron/mulmocast-vision)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/receptron/mulmocast-vision'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server