powerpoint_inspect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Inspect' strongly suggests a non-mutating operation, giving a basic safety signal, but the description says nothing about scope (e.g., entire deck vs. current slide), errors, or any implicit side effects. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single clear sentence that leads with the action and lists the relevant inspected entities. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema information.

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?

This is a low-parametric tool with a full input schema and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It adequately identifies the tool's purpose and scope, though it could be slightly stronger with an explicit read-only caveat or typical use case.

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 one parameter and the schema already provides a clear description ('Path to presentation') at 100% coverage. The tool description adds no further detail about the expected path format, but with full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Inspect' and names both the resource ('a PowerPoint presentation') and the relevant detail types (slides, layout names, shapes, text frames). This scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like powerpoint_open or word_inspect.

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 verb 'Inspect' implies this is the read-only/navigation tool for presentation structure, and siblings make the domain clear. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose it over, say, powerpoint_open or powerpoint_render_slide, nor does it mention prerequisites such as having already opened the file.

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