List layout archetypes (and optionally a template's stencils)

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: it behaves differently with and without the optional template, returning either the archetype catalog or also template slide details. OpenWorldHint=false is not contradicted by the description.

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 two sentences with no filler, front-loading the primary return value and then explaining the conditional template behavior. The title adds a concise summary, and every word contributes to operational understanding.

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 one optional parameter, a rich output schema, and clear annotations, the description fully covers both invocation modes and the practical purpose of the template parameter. There are no significant gaps for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 input schema already documents template, path, and base64 with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds functional value by explaining that passing a template lets the agent inspect existing slides and pick stencilSlideIndex values, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 the tool's function: it returns the catalog of slide layout archetypes supported by pptx_create_deck, and optionally inspects an existing template's slides for layout names and placeholder types. It uses specific, distinct language that separates it from the sibling tools like create, validate, audit, and repair.

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 clearly explains when to use the tool: before creating a deck or when working in template mode, specifically to choose a stencilSlideIndex. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer correct usage.

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