get_slide_count

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, what format the slide count returns in, whether it works on open presentations or saved files, or any error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description is completely inadequate.

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?

While extremely concise at just two words, this description is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It lacks the necessary context that would make brevity valuable. The single phrase doesn't provide enough information to be truly helpful, though it doesn't waste words on irrelevant content. It's minimal but insufficient rather than optimally concise.

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 complexity of presentation tools (with 35+ sibling tools), no annotations, and no output schema, this description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what context it operates in, how it relates to other presentation tools, or any behavioral characteristics. For a tool in a rich ecosystem with no structured safety or output information, this minimal description fails to provide necessary context.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'doc_name' fully documented in the schema as 'Document name (optional, defaults to front document)'. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation through 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 'Get slide count' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what resource the slide count is retrieved from (presentation/document) or clarify the scope beyond what's implied by the name. While it includes a verb ('Get'), it lacks specificity about the target resource and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling presentation-related 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 provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an open presentation), doesn't specify what context it operates in, and doesn't differentiate it from other slide-related tools like 'get_slide_info' or 'get_presentation_info'. The agent receives no usage context beyond the tool name itself.

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