Browse SlideForge's Catalog (Unified Discovery)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's added transparency about result shapes per mode, the 'Free' cost signal, capacity limits, examples, thumbnails, and the explicit 'not a sendable contract' warning is strong value beyond structured data. The description also prevents misuse by clarifying that certain outputs are for chooser/discovery and not executable contracts. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but not wasteful — nearly every clause states a distinct mode or constraint, and the first sentence front-loads the core browsing behavior. That said, the heavy semicolon-separated run-on structure and shorthand such as 'bound fields' and 'FURNITURE' make parsing harder than necessary, so a bit more grouping or bolding would improve scannability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 11-optional-parameter, multi-mode discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers most combinations, expected outputs, and even the follow-up rendering path via create_slide. Minor gaps remain, such as how q interacts with family, what type=schema alone returns, and precise return shapes for search results, but these are relatively small given the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema leaves several parameters like family, variant, and prior_id without property descriptions, but the description fills those gaps with concrete mode formulas: 'family=<form> -> variant one-liners', 'variant=/prior_id= -> example payload', and 'type=schema + family + variant' for the exact machine-readable contract. It also maps the ambiguous type parameter across schema, widgets, helpers, themes, and brands, adding meaning far beyond the raw schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific action and resource — 'Browse the PowerPoint slide catalog progressively' — and then enumerates the different browsing surfaces (form overview, variants, search, contracts, widgets, helpers, themes). This makes the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like create_slide, plan_slide, and create_deck, which actually generate presentations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit mode-selection guidance: 'No args -> form overview', 'family=<form> -> variant one-liners', 'q=<text> -> ranked search', and it warns that 'type=schema + family' is 'not a sendable contract' while adding variant yields the exact payload contract. It also connects to a sibling for the next step: the theme results 'render via create_slide(form=template_layout, theme_id, data={layout, fills}).' It lacks an explicit global when-not-to-use statement versus alternatives, but the context is otherwise strong.

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