ppt_analyze_containers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It says 'identify,' implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that the tool makes no modifications or whether it has side effects like requiring an open file or heavy computation. The description adds some value by listing the output elements but lacks explicit safety or performance context.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and outputs. It front-loads the main action and then lists the specific data returned. There is no verbosity or redundancy, though it could be improved with a brief usage hint.

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?

While an output schema exists (so return format is likely covered), the description fails to explain the parameters, when to use the tool, or any behavioral considerations. Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, one required), the description is incomplete for an agent to call it correctly without additional inference about the parameters.

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 coverage is 0% because the description mentions no parameters. It does not explain what 'slide_number' or 'presentation_path' mean or how they relate to the container analysis. Since the description must compensate for the schema's lack of explanatory text, and it does not, the parameter semantics are entirely unaddressed.

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 verb 'identify' with a specific resource: 'logical containers (cards, group boxes) and their contained child elements on a slide.' It also specifies the output elements (bounding boxes, relative child positions, confidence scores), making it distinct from general slide inspection tools. This differentiates it from siblings like ppt_inspect_slide and ppt_analyze_slide_structure by focusing on container hierarchy.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer it over ppt_analyze_slide_structure or other inspection tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone.

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