ppt_inspect_shape

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns detailed shape properties, which implies a read-only inspection, but it does not explicitly state that it does not modify the presentation, nor does it mention prerequisites like the presentation being open or potential errors. The OOXML snippet detail adds some transparency about output, but gaps remain regarding side effects and requirements.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get exhaustive details for a single shape') and then enumerates the included attributes. There is no fluff or repetition, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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?

The tool has an output schema (indicated in context), so the description is not required to explain return values. However, it lacks explicit parameter semantics and usage guidance, and provides only partial behavioral context. For a complex inspection tool with three parameters, this is inadequate for an agent to invoke it correctly without further inference.

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 for the lack of parameter documentation. It does not explain the meaning of shape_id, slide_number, or presentation_path beyond what the schema provides. While the parameter names are self-explanatory, the description adds no context about how they relate to the operation or any constraints (e.g., that shape_id is scoped to a specific slide). This is a notable 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'exhaustive details for a single shape on a slide', and enumerates the specific properties returned (text frames, paragraphs, runs, margins, line styling, fill properties, OOXML snippet). This distinguishes it from sibling inspection tools such as ppt_inspect_slide (slide-level) and ppt_inspect_text (text-focused), so an agent can immediately identify the tool's scope.

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 the tool is for inspecting a single shape but never explicitly contrasts it with alternatives or states when to prefer this over ppt_inspect_slide or ppt_inspect_text. While the name and purpose make the use case obvious, the absence of explicit routing guidance (e.g., 'for slide-level details use ppt_inspect_slide') leaves the decision to inference.

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