export_to_images

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention critical details such as file naming conventions, overwrite behavior, error conditions (e.g., directory does not exist, no open presentation), or whether the operation is blocking. These omissions reduce transparency significantly.

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 single-sentence description is concise and front-loaded with the key action. It could be improved by adding a bit more structure (e.g., noting file naming conventions) without becoming verbose.

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 tool has no output schema or annotations, the description should provide more context. It lacks details about return values, error handling, file naming, and dependencies (e.g., presentation must be open). These gaps make it incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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 input schema provides full coverage (100%) with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 exports all slides of the frontmost presentation as individual image files to a directory. It uses a specific verb (exports) and resource (all slides), and implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like export_slide_to_image (single slide) and export_to_pdf (PDF format).

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 implies usage: when you need images of all slides. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., export_slide_to_image for single slides) or provide any exclusions, prerequisites, or context on 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.