inspect_deck

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it discloses the exact return content and a genuine side effect (theme is cached after the first call), which an agent cannot learn from structured fields. It stops short of stating explicitly that the call is non-mutating, what errors occur, or how large decks are handled.

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?

Four tight sentences; the returned payload is front-loaded, then the entry-point guidance, then the caching note, then sibling routing. No sentence is filler.

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?

With only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and disclosing the caching behavior. Everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result is present.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including its optionality when only one presentation is connected. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States the resource (deck) and enumerates exactly what the overview contains: slide dimensions, theme colors/fonts, and slides with index, ID and shape count. It is immediately distinguishable from scan_slide, inspect_slide and inspect_layouts, which it names explicitly.

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?

"Use as the first call to understand deck structure" gives an explicit entry-point condition, and the two follow-up sentences route the agent to scan_slide/inspect_slide for shape details and inspect_layouts for layouts. Both alternatives carry the condition that selects them.

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