Cross-Platform PowerPoint MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a list of slides but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get'), potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 well-structured and concise, using clear sections for 'Args' and 'Returns.' It avoids unnecessary details and gets straight to the point. However, the 'Returns' section could be more specific, and there's slight room for improvement in efficiency, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency. With no annotations, it should do more to compensate, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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 description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema. It explains that 'presentation_id' is the 'ID of the presentation,' which clarifies the parameter's purpose. However, with 0% schema description coverage, this doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema details, such as format or constraints. The baseline is 3 since the schema handles the structure, but the description provides only basic context.

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: 'Get a list of all slides in a presentation.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('slides in a presentation'), making the action explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_slide_text' or 'get_presentations', which prevents a score of 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_slide_text' for slide content or 'get_presentations' for listing presentations, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing an open presentation. This lack of contextual direction limits its utility for an AI agent.

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