wps_ppt_get_slide_info

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

Annotations already convey that the operation is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that the result includes layout and element list details, but it does not clarify behavior for invalid slide indexes, whether it targets the active presentation, or other edge cases. The added behavioral context is modest.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one clear sentence, and the usage examples are short and scannable. The examples are somewhat redundant with the first sentence, but they do not bloat the description meaningfully.

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, read-only tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context by stating the returned content includes layout and element lists. Exact return fields are not enumerated, but the absence of an output schema and the low complexity make the high-level summary acceptable.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the only parameter, slideIndex, is already fully described as a 1-based numeric index. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it neither improves nor harms the schema-level documentation.

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 retrieves detailed information about a specified slide, including layout and element lists. This is a specific verb-resource pairing and broadly distinguishes it from narrower sibling tools like wps_ppt_get_slide_title or wps_ppt_get_slide_notes, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 '使用场景' section provides concrete user intents that should trigger this tool, such as '查看第3页的信息' and '这页有什么内容'. This gives clear context for when to use it, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or which sibling tools to prefer for title-only or notes-only needs.

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