ppt_inspect_slide

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. It does state that it 'Defaults to concise agent-friendly summary', which is a useful behavioral trait about output format. It also lists supported filters, but it does not explain the effects of those filters (e.g., what include_style does when false) nor explicitly state that the tool is read-only and does not modify the presentation. Given the absence of annotations, this is a moderate disclosure but not comprehensive.

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 exactly two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose and scope, the second highlights the default behavior and lists key filters. Every word contributes, and it is appropriately front-loaded with the core action. This is a model of conciseness.

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 (10 parameters, 1 required, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of many parameters, does not specify valid values for shape_types or semantic_roles, and does not clarify what each include_* toggle controls. While an output schema exists and handles return value structure, the agent lacks guidance on how to configure the tool effectively for different inspection needs. The description leaves significant gaps for an agent to resolve.

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 has 0% description coverage, meaning the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions several filter names (text_only, include_geometry, include_style, include_images, shape_types, semantic_roles) but does not define their meaning, acceptable values, or interactions. It omits other parameters like detail, include_xml, and presentation_path entirely. For a tool with 10 parameters, this is insufficient, leaving an agent to guess at semantics.

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 'Inspect shapes on a specific slide', which identifies the verb (inspect), the resource (shapes on a slide), and the scope (specific slide). It is distinct from sibling tools like ppt_inspect_presentation (whole presentation) and ppt_inspect_shape (single shape), though it does not explicitly name those alternatives. The mention of filtering and detail control adds clarity about its function.

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 when to use this tool: when you need to inspect shapes on a specific slide, as opposed to other inspect tools. However, it provides no explicit guidance on alternatives, such as when to use ppt_inspect_presentation for presentation-level data or ppt_inspect_shape for a single shape. The phrase 'with filtering and detail control' hints at use cases, but there are no exclusions or clear recommendations.

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