get-slide-example

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the XML is working and directly usable with create_powerpoint, but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, though '取得します' implies retrieval.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by useful integration context and a list of supported types. No redundant or irrelevant content.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description provides enough context: what it does, what types are supported, and how the result is used. It doesn't detail XML structure, but that's not necessary given the 'pass to create_powerpoint' hint. Could mention error behavior for invalid slide_type, but enum constraints mitigate that.

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 covers 100% of the parameter with a detailed description and enum. The tool description simply repeats the available slide types in plain language, adding no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 description clearly states it retrieves sample XML for specific slide types, with a specific verb ('取得します') and resource (slide XML). It also mentions integration with create_powerpoint, distinguishing its purpose from sibling tools like validate-pom-slide and create_powerpoint.

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?

Provides clear context: use when you need a working sample XML to pass to create_powerpoint. It lists available slide types, but doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools.

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