从课件起草讲解并做内容审

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses key non-effects: it does not call a model, does not write to Notion, and only returns skeleton and excerpts. However, mention of '内容审' and 'gate.pass' could imply this tool returns a gate status, and the 'MCP 负责...写入 Notion' sentence is ambiguous about whether Notion writing happens here or elsewhere.

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 core points are front-loaded in the first three sentences, but '本工具不调用模型' and the idea that the Agent writes the lecture are repeated. The 'MCP 负责...' sentence is confusing and largely out of scope for this specific tool, and the failure-condition list adds bulk without direct invocation value.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential contract: what is returned (skeleton and excerpts), what is not done (no model call, no Notion write), and the next pipeline step. It leaves the exact skeleton/excerpt format unspecified, but that is acceptable given the simple schema.

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?

There is only one required parameter, deckPath, and schema description coverage is 100% with the schema itself saying it is a local .pdf or .pptx path. The tool description adds no format, validation, or alternative meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 first two sentences state the specific function: it returns only a structural skeleton and deck excerpts so the Agent can write the lecture, and it explicitly says this is not a finished product, does not call a model, and does not write to Notion. It names run_lecture_pipeline as the next step, distinguishing it from that sibling. The later sentence 'MCP 负责...内容审、写入 Notion...' muddies whether this specific tool also does content review or Notion writes, but the core purpose is still clear.

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?

It tells the Agent to hand the draft to run_lecture_pipeline after writing and frames this tool as the drafting step rather than the final output. The failure-condition list gives quality constraints for the draft. It does not explicitly compare with ingest_deck or audit tools, but the workflow context is clear and there are no misleading exclusions.

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