ppt_outline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. "盘点" and the extractive outputs (palette, fonts, shape inventory) strongly imply a read-only analysis, but the description never explicitly states that it is non-mutating, requires a valid local file, or has any side effects. It does at least disclose what the tool produces.

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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the core action "盘点参考 pptx" and then the extracted artifacts. The parenthetical examples and the trailing reversal rationale are dense but each clause adds information; no filler sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained. However, for a tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify that it is read-only and what the pptx_path must be. It covers the analysis outputs well but leaves these operational gaps.

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 0%, so the schema only provides the name "pptx_path" with no description. The description adds a little meaning by framing it as a "参考 pptx" (reference deck), but it does not explain path format, extension requirements, or whether the file must be local. For a single self-evidently named parameter, this is minimally acceptable.

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 states a specific verb+resource: inventorying a reference pptx, and enumerates what the outline covers (theme palette/fonts, per-page shape list, preliminary role identification). It also links the output to slide selection for the reversal workflow, which helps distinguish it from siblings like ppt_reverse, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling.

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?

"选择性逆转的选片依据" implies this tool is used upstream of the reversal step to choose slides, giving some usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., file must exist locally), and no explicit routing away from siblings such as ppt_reverse or convert_html.

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