Browse SlideForge's Catalog (Unified Discovery)

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by detailing the behavior of each mode (e.g., returns contracts, thumbnails, layouts) and even suggests downstream actions ('render via create_slide'). 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 and information-rich but lacks structural elements like bullet points or clear section breaks. It front-loads the main purpose but becomes a wall of text, making parsing harder despite being concise in word count.

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

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

Given the complexity (11 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all major use cases and explains what each mode returns (e.g., form overview with variant counts, exact payload contracts). It even mentions the code path and rendering instructions for themes. Missing a formal output schema is partially mitigated.

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?

With 73% schema description coverage, the description goes beyond the schema by explaining how parameters interact (e.g., 'type=schema + family -> variant chooser', 'variant=/prior_id= -> example payload'). For parameters like family and variant that lack schema descriptions, the description provides essential context, compensating for gaps.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool is for browsing the SSG catalog progressively, with a specific verb 'browse' and resource 'catalog'. It differentiates from siblings like create_slide or plan_slide by focusing on discovery rather than creation. The multiple modes are explicitly outlined, making the purpose unmistakable.

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

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

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use each parameter combination (e.g., 'No args -> form overview', 'q=<text> -> ranked search'), and contrasts with siblings implicitly by describing a discovery workflow that precedes creation. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements or direct references to alternatives.

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