Poll a PowerPoint generation task by SID to track its progress. Once complete, retrieve the PPT download URL from the response.
查询PPT生成任务进度。使用说明：1. 用于查询通过create_ppt_task或create_ppt_by_outline创建的任务进度。2. 需定期轮询本工具直到任务完成。3. 任务完成后，可从返回结果中获取PPT下载地址。4. 需先设置环境变量AIPPT_APP_ID和AIPPT_API_SECRET。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sid | Yes | 任务ID，从create_ppt_task或create_ppt_by_outline工具获取 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: polling requirement, auth prerequisite via environment variables, and that the download URL appears in the result. It does not cover failure/error states or how to interpret a not-yet-complete response, so it falls just short of full disclosure.
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?
Purpose is front-loaded in one clause, then a tight numbered list of four operational rules. Every line carries distinct information with no repetition or 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 polling tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by explaining what the result yields (the PPT download URL) and the auth requirement. The main gap is the absence of guidance on error/incomplete states, but overall an agent has what it needs to invoke it 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?
The single sid parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including its origin from the create tools, so the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it. A baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is 100%.
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+resource (query PPT generation task progress) and immediately scopes it to tasks created by create_ppt_task or create_ppt_by_outline, naming the siblings explicitly. An agent can distinguish this polling tool from the creation tools and read-only siblings without opening any schema.
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?
Explicit when-to-use (tasks made by the two create tools), how-to-use (poll periodically until complete), and a prerequisite (set AIPPT_APP_ID and AIPPT_API_SECRET first). It even tells the agent what to do on completion, leaving little inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.