pptdepot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining that the result is inline viewable image content and that only public images under a specific path are served, which goes beyond the structured metadata. 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?

Three short sentences front-load the core purpose, then provide input guidance and the access restriction. There is no filler or redundancy; the parenthetical list of image types is concise and necessary for clarity.

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 a single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description explains what it returns (inline image content), what to pass, and an important limitation. This is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly without further inference.

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 already fully describes image_url with 100% coverage, giving a baseline of 3. The description supplements this by enumerating the four source field names the value may come from and by imposing the allowed domain, which gives agents more practical guidance than the schema alone.

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 states a specific verb and resource: returns a PPT Depot preview image as inline image content, and enumerates the image subtypes it covers. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_slide or get_template, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 clearly says to pass any image_url, thumbnail_url, preview_images, or collage_image value returned by other tools, which gives an agent direct context for when to invoke it. It also adds a limitation ('Only public images under pptdepot.com/images are served'), but it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the content returned (plans, features, color schemes, links), which is useful but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as data freshness, caching, or potential delays. With annotations covering the operational nature, a 3 reflects that the description adds some but not rich 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.

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

The description is two sentences with no filler. The first sentence enumerates all the specific data returned, front-loading the core content, and the second gives the usage trigger. Every sentence earns its place, making it compact and highly scannable for an agent.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining what the tool returns. It lists all the distinct elements: single-template price, three subscription plans with what each includes, common features, three color schemes, and links to plans and cart pages. It also provides usage guidance. Nothing an agent needs to decide when and how to call it is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is given for tools with no parameters. The description does not need to explain parameters; it focuses on the output content, which is appropriate. No additional parameter information is required.

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 states precisely what the tool returns: single-template price, three subscription plans with inclusions, common features, color schemes, and links. It uses a specific resource ('PPT Depot pricing') and is easily distinguished from all sibling tools, none of which address pricing. The verb is implied by the name and the content is clearly about retrieving pricing information.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when a user asks about cost, licensing, subscriptions, or how to download a template.' This gives clear triggers. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the sibling list shows no other pricing tool, so the guidance is sufficient. A 4 is appropriate because exclusions are absent.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing exactly what 'full detail' includes, such as tags, preview image URL, parent template options, sibling slides, and related slides.

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 leads with the core purpose and uses a colon to introduce a dense, organized enumeration of return contents. It is longer than minimal but every phrase adds information, and it avoids fluff or repetition of the schema.

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?

With no output schema present, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so at a useful level of detail. It covers the main content categories, the input format, and the source of the slide_id, though it does not describe response structure or pagination.

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 already documents the parameter fully, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by stating that the numeric ID is preferred and that the slug also works, plus it identifies the source of the ID as search_slides, which helps the agent choose the correct value.

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 names a specific resource ('one slide') and a clear action ('get full detail'), then enumerates the distinct contents returned. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_template and search_slides by explicitly covering slide-specific data plus related template and slide information.

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 tells the agent to take the slide_id from search_slides, giving a clear workflow context and implying this tool is the lookup step after a search. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, which keeps it one step below full exclusion guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by listing what the response includes (templates, most-viewed slides, related tags), which is beyond what annotations provide and helps set expectations.

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 two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the parameter source stated in the second sentence. Every word is useful; no fluff or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description lists the key components of the response (templates, most-viewed slides, related tags), giving an agent a reasonable expectation. It lacks details like pagination or limits, but for a single-parameter read tool, this is adequate. Annotations cover the safety aspects.

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 coverage is 100% with tag_id described as a slug with an example. The description adds the source of the slug (from list_tags), which is not in the schema, and reinforces that it's a slug. This extra guidance helps the agent correctly source the parameter.

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 returns aggregated tag details: templates containing tagged slides, most-viewed tagged slides, and related tags. This is specific about the resource (tag) and the action (get details), and it distinguishes from siblings like get_template and get_slide by focusing on tag-centric aggregation.

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?

It provides clear context by instructing to take the tag_id (slug) from list_tags, which implies a prerequisite step and how to obtain the parameter. While it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives, the context is enough for an agent to infer it's for fetching details of a single tag after listing.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context about the full returned payload, including slides, previews, related templates, and purchase/subscription price information.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact field list and ID-source guidance. The single long sentence is dense but contains no filler.

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 a one-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description enumerates the return payload and the ID source. An agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds provenance by saying template_id comes from search_templates or list_templates, but it narrows the value to 'slug' while the schema also allows a numeric deck ID.

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?

States a specific noun and scope: 'Full detail for one PowerPoint template deck.' It enumerates the returned fields, distinguishing it from list/search siblings that operate over multiple templates or individual slides.

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?

Clear context is given: the tool is for a single template and the template_id should come from search_templates or list_templates. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true, so the safe/read-only nature is covered. The description adds behavioral nuance: the resource is emailed after entering an email address, implying no direct download, and mentions the public page. This is useful but could be more explicit about the email delivery consequence.

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 three sentences, reasonably concise, and front-loads the core purpose. It states the value proposition ('try before buying') and the filtering options. No redundant filler, though the last sentence about user intent could be considered marginal.

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 moderate complexity (3 optional parameters) and no output schema, the description covers the essence: what it lists and its general behavior (email delivery). However, it doesn't detail pagination or how limit behaves, but since the schema covers parameters, this is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter (type, limit, query). The description adds minimal semantic value: it mentions the 'type' filter for maps/templates, which aligns with the schema. It doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 states a specific verb ('list') and resource ('free PowerPoint downloads') and clarifies that it covers free maps and template packs. It distinguishes from siblings like list_templates by specifying 'free' items, but doesn't explicitly name the sibling, limiting differentiation.

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 that this is for users who want to try before buying, suggesting a use case, but does not explicitly say when not to use it or provide alternatives. It mentions the optional filters (keyword and type) but doesn't compare to list_templates or list_tags.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: tags are ranked by slide count, there is an optional keyword filter, and each tag has a public browse page. It doesn't describe pagination or exact return shape, but with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the added context is solid.

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?

Three sentences with no waste. The core purpose and ranking criterion are front-loaded, the optional filter is mentioned, and the routing to siblings is at the end. Every sentence earns its place.

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 a simple read-only list tool with 2 optional parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It explains what tags are, how results are ranked, the optional filter, and how to get more detail via siblings. The only minor gap is not describing the exact return shape, but with no output schema and a simple list operation, this is acceptable.

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 schema already documents both parameters (limit and query). The description adds a bit of context by mentioning the optional keyword filter and the ranking behavior, but it doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('list') and resource ('tags'), defines what tags are with concrete examples, and explains the ranking criterion ('by how many slides carry them'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_tag and search_slides as alternatives, so an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Use get_tag to see a tag's templates and slides, or pass tag_id to search_slides.' This gives clear routing guidance and exclusions, which is exactly what an agent needs to select the right tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safe/read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful context that each category holds roughly 10–50 templates, indicating complete listings, and explains the no-category behavior. This exceeds the baseline but doesn't cover pagination or default sort behavior (though the schema handles default).

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and key options; the second clarifies the no-category behavior; the third adds a helpful bounded-size note. Every sentence contributes.

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 a read-only browse tool with three optional parameters, the description covers purpose, category behavior, sort modes, and an important completeness caveat. It doesn't discuss return shape, but that is acceptable given no output schema and the simplicity of the operation. It is slightly incomplete in not addressing the relationship to list_free_templates, but not a major gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of categories and sort options largely mirrors the schema enum descriptions; it adds no deeper semantics about limit usage or default sort. It does clarify the 'no category' case, but the schema already states that.

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 states a specific action ('browse') and resource ('template catalog'), and explicitly notes it works without a keyword, which distinguishes it from the sibling search_templates. It also enumerates category types and sort modes, leaving little ambiguity about scope.

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 phrase 'without a keyword' gives a clear condition for using this tool rather than a keyword-based search (search_templates). It also explains the behavior of omitting category. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives such as search_templates or list_free_templates, and it doesn't state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying exactly what each result includes: public page URL, preview image URL, overview, tags, and parent template. No contradictions 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action and search scope, followed by result contents, optional filters, and a routing note. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 a read-only search tool without an output schema, the description is complete: it explains searchable fields, result fields, optional filters and their sources, and the natural alternative for deeper slide detail. The required query parameter is already documented in the schema, so nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a clear description and example. The description adds extra value by defining the search scope, naming filter source tools (list_tags, search_templates), and clarifying how query matches against multiple fields. This goes beyond the schema alone.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and scoped resource ('individual slides inside PPT Depot's templates'), enumerates exactly which fields are matched (slide title, overview text, tags, parent template name), and lists what results contain. This clearly differentiates it from template-level or tag-level sibling tools.

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 clear context: use for keyword search over slides, optionally filtered by tag_id or template_id. It explicitly routes users to get_slide when a full slide description is needed. It could more explicitly contrast with search_templates, but the scope is unambiguous.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it returns relevance-ranked results and specifies the exact fields searched (name, headline, description, slide titles/tags) plus the return fields (page URL, cover image, slide count, cart URL). This adds context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't mention pagination or rate limits.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, the optional filter is mentioned, the usage guidance is explicit, and the alternative is named. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is a simple search with 3 well-documented parameters. The description covers the search fields, the optional category filter, the return fields, and the integration with get_template. No output schema exists, so the description appropriately explains return values. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the search scope (name, headline, description, and titles/tags of slides) and by clarifying the default limit (10) and max (25) already in the schema but reinforced. This is beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (PPT Depot's catalog of consulting-grade PowerPoint template decks), and explicitly differentiates from search_slides by saying 'For individual slides or frameworks... use search_slides.' The scope is clear and distinct from siblings.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use this first to find a template_id for get_template.' It also names the alternative tool (search_slides) and the condition for choosing it. Clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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