inspect_layouts

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavioral traits: file access requirement, first-call latency for cloud files, and an Office.js-only fast path. It does not state read-only/non-mutating semantics explicitly, which would be the remaining gap for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Five tight sentences, front-loaded with the return shape, then parameter behavior, then the performance caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information; no restatement of the tool name or redundant boilerplate.

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 three optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies exactly what is missing: the structure of the return value, the default field set, the master-disambiguation key, and the cost profile of each mode. An agent could call this correctly on the first attempt.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains that `fields` controls which data comes back, that `masterIndex` exists specifically to disambiguate same-named layouts across masters, and it frames the performance tradeoff behind `usedOnly` rather than just restating its boolean.

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 a specific verb and resource ("Returns slide layouts") and enumerates the returned data shape (names, OOXML type, master/layout indices, placeholders). It is clearly distinct from slide- or deck-level siblings like inspect_slide/inspect_deck by scope, though it never names an alternative 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?

Gives a clear decision rule between the two modes: default = all layouts from every master via OOXML (complete, requires file access, may be slow on first call), versus usedOnly = only layouts assigned to slides (fast, Office.js only, no file access). It lacks guidance on when to prefer this over inspect_slide/inspect_deck for layout-related questions.

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