generate_slides_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing critical behavioral traits: it explains the 6-paragraph limit for queries, specifies pre-call steps (read code, analyze, summarize), and mandates post-call actions (include the returned link, don't just summarize). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling.

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 front-loaded with purpose and triggers, but becomes verbose with detailed instructions (pre-call steps, post-call mandates). While all information is relevant, some sentences could be more streamlined (e.g., combining related points about paragraph limits). It's comprehensive but slightly over-explained.

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's complexity (requires pre-processing and has specific output handling), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, usage, behavioral constraints, and parameter guidance. It lacks details on the returned link format or error cases, but provides sufficient context for effective use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by emphasizing the 6-paragraph limit for the 'query' parameter and providing context on how to structure content (focus on quality, include only relevant details). It doesn't add syntax details beyond the schema, but reinforces constraints effectively.

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's purpose: 'generate a Marble platform link for interactive learning slides that EXPLAIN or TEACH concepts.' It specifies the verb ('generate'), resource ('Marble platform link'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on explanation/teaching slides rather than general links or project suggestions.

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 usage triggers with a comprehensive list of phrases ('slides', 'explain', 'teach me', etc.) and clear prerequisites (reading code files, analyzing patterns, summarizing context). It also specifies when to use it versus alternatives by distinguishing it from sibling tools through its teaching focus.

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