Keynote: inspect style

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the inspection scope and the 'read before theming' sequencing cue, but because an output schema exists, the enumerated return contents largely duplicate what structured fields provide.

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 middle clause repeats the same field list twice ('theme, layouts, and each text item's font, size and colour' vs. the earlier enumeration), which is wasted text. The front-loaded scope statement is good, but the redundancy costs a point.

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 annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return values, the description only needs to establish purpose, timing, and sibling routing — all of which it does. Minor gap: no note on cost or scale for large decks.

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% and the single 'path' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description says nothing about the path argument, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 and scope: a deck's theme, available slide layouts, and per-slide layout plus each text item's text/font/size/colour. It distinguishes itself from keynote_list_slides explicitly, though the opening fragment ('A deck's styling: ...') is grammatically loose.

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?

Gives a clear directive ('Read this before theming') and a routing rule to a sibling ('For slide text and notes use keynote_list_slides'). It stops short of stating when this tool should NOT be used or its prerequisites other than sequencing before theming/formatting.

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