ppt_validate_slide

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it 'Returns structured summary counts and issue descriptions', which is helpful. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only or if it modifies the presentation, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., whether the presentation must be open). It also does not describe error handling or edge cases. The output info is good, but side effects and safety are unclear.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose, then lists specific error codes, and closes with the output type. Every part adds value. It is concise and well-structured.

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 4 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to confidently use the tool. The core purpose is clear, but parameters like 'rules' (which likely filters which checks to run) and 'detail' (which controls output verbosity) are not explained. The agent may be able to call with just the required slide_number and rely on defaults, but any customization would require guessing. The description lacks essential operational detail.

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, but it does not. It never mentions parameters like 'rules', 'detail', 'slide_number', or 'presentation_path'. The only indirect hint is 'on a slide' which maps to slide_number. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which itself has no descriptions, leaving the agent without guidance on what values to pass or what the defaults mean.

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's purpose: 'Run rule-based geometric and typographic validation on a slide' and enumerates specific error codes (VAL-01 through VAL-07). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspection (which likely returns raw data) and analysis (which may assess structure). It is a specific verb+resource description.

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 the tool (when validation is needed), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Since it lists specific issue types, an agent could infer it is for detecting those issues, but there is no comparison to inspect or analyze tools. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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