ppt_inspect_presentation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The closing clause 'without modifying any state' directly signals that this is a non-destructive read operation, which is valuable safety context. It adds value beyond the schema by confirming the tool has no side effects.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and scope, states the covered fields, and closes with the key behavioral constraint. There is zero filler or repetition — every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere. Given the simple single-parameter surface and the description's clear scope plus non-mutation disclosure, this is nearly complete. It falls just short only because it omits explicit guidance on how to reach this tool versus the slide/shape/text inspection variants.

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% and the description says nothing about the presentation_path parameter. However, the single parameter's name is self-explanatory and the description's opening establishes the presentation context, so an agent can reasonably infer it expects a path to the target file. The description adds minimal but adequate guidance given the parameter's obviousness.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Inspect') paired with a precisely scoped resource ('high-level presentation metadata') and enumerates the exact fields covered (slide count, dimensions, master layout names, titles). This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling inspection tools like ppt_inspect_slide, ppt_inspect_shape, and ppt_inspect_text, which target finer-grained entities.

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 scope is implied by 'high-level presentation metadata' — an agent could infer this is for whole-presentation inspection rather than slide/shape/text level. However, the description never names alternatives or states explicit when/when-not conditions, leaving the differentiation to inference rather than explicit routing.

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