Get Video PPT Slices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool only reads metadata and has no image-download side effect, indicating a non-destructive operation. Yet it doesn't describe the exact output structure, potential errors, or prerequisites beyond the parameters, so transparency is only partial.

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?

Two short sentences, each serves a purpose: the first states the action and object, the second clarifies a critical non-behavior to prevent misuse. No fluff.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should specify what 'slice metadata' contains (timings, URLs, etc.), but it only says metadata. The two parameters are well-documented, and the tool is simple, yet the absence of return-value details leaves a moderate gap for an agent deciding whether this tool fits the task.

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 and the description adds little beyond the schema. It confirms 'one SJTU video' ties to video_id but doesn't explain how course_id relates or define 'slice metadata,' so no meaningful parameter semantics added.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and the resource 'PPT replay slice metadata for one SJTU video,' which clearly defines the operation and scope. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'download_video_ppt' by stating it does not download images, preventing confusion with the download tool.

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 the use case: retrieving metadata without downloading images, which contrasts with download_video_ppt. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or give conditions like 'use this when you only need metadata.' Still, the negative statement provides clear selection context.

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