export_report_ppt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It mentions it reads specific files and requires Python packages, providing some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on whether the tool modifies files, error handling, or read-only status.

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 concise with two sentences, well-structured, and front-loaded with the main action. It lists sections efficiently without extraneous detail.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools, the description provides adequate context about the tool's purpose and prerequisites but lacks detail on parameters and output format, leaving some 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the parameters 'out' or 'workdir'. It does not link the mentioned input files to 'workdir', nor does it clarify the 'out' parameter.

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 builds a PPTX report from run outputs and figures, listing specific sections like 'Title', 'Coverage KPI', 'Methods', etc. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as plot_coverage or export_code.

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 gives explicit prerequisites: 'run coverage_summary first' and 'Requires python-pptx + pillow'. It implies when to use (after coverage_summary has been run) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among siblings.

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