get_slide_size

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. While it indicates this is a read operation ('get'), it doesn't specify whether it requires specific permissions, what happens if the document doesn't exist, or what format the information is returned in. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and doesn't include unnecessary details.

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 simple read operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or output schema, it should ideally provide more context about what exactly is returned (e.g., specific measurements, layout names) and any constraints or requirements for using the tool effectively.

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. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 with specific verbs ('get') and resources ('slide size, aspect ratio, and layout reference info'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like 'get_slide_info' or 'get_presentation_info', which might also provide related information.

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. With sibling tools like 'get_slide_info' and 'get_presentation_info' available, there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be preferred over those options.

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