ppt_distribute_shapes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavioral implications. It describes the operation (distribute) but omits any side effects, reversibility, error cases, or prerequisites beyond the shape count. There's no mention of what happens to the shapes' original positions or whether the operation is destructive. A mutation tool with no annotations leaves agents guessing about safety and impact, so a 2 is appropriate.

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, compact sentence that conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and includes key options (axis and spacing mode) in a scannable manner. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, multiple sibling tools, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It omits parameter semantics for most fields, fails to explain when to choose this over similar tools, and provides no behavior or return value expectations. While an output schema exists, its presence doesn't compensate for the missing usage and parameter guidance. The description is adequate for a basic idea but insufficient for reliable agent invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining all parameters. It covers 'direction' (horizontal or vertical) and 'spacing_mode' (equal gaps or equal centers) indirectly, but it does not address slide_number, shape_ids, or presentation_path. While the 3+ shapes hint maps to shape_ids, the meaning and format of the remaining parameters are not clarified, leaving a significant knowledge gap.

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 distributes shapes evenly along horizontal or vertical axes, with the choice of equal gaps or centers. It specifies the resource (shapes) and the action (distribute), which is more specific than just 'distribute'. However, it does not differentiate from closely related siblings like ppt_space_shapes or ppt_align_shapes, leaving some ambiguity about when this tool is the right choice.

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 implies a prerequisite of at least 3 shapes ('3 or more shapes') and mentions configurable direction and spacing mode, giving some context. Yet it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as align, space, or equalize sizes, nor does it state any conditions where it should not be used. The usage guidance is inferred rather than explicit, earning a middling score.

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