select_slide

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. 'Select a specific slide' implies a read or navigation action but doesn't specify if it changes state (e.g., sets active slide for edits), requires permissions, or has side effects. It lacks details on what 'select' entails, such as whether it's reversible or affects other operations.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's action, making it easy to parse quickly. This is an example of optimal conciseness for a simple tool.

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 tool's complexity (a selection action with 2 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'select' means in context (e.g., does it return data or change state?), leaving gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and outcomes. More detail is needed for effective use.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('doc_name' and 'slide_number') with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how selection works with default documents or slide numbering. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Select a specific slide' states a clear verb ('Select') and resource ('slide'), but it's vague about what 'select' means operationally (e.g., does it highlight, navigate to, or set as active?). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_slide_info' or 'get_slide_content', which might retrieve slide data without selecting. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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 siblings like 'get_slide_info' or 'get_slide_content' that might retrieve slide details, there's no indication of when selection is needed (e.g., for subsequent edits or navigation). Usage is implied only by the tool name, not explained.

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