inspect_slide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the two things an agent most needs: the approximate payload cost (~80 tokens/shape, which matters on ranged calls) and the shape of the output. It does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only or note auth/prerequisites, leaving a small gap.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the cost/return profile before the alternative routing. Every clause earns its place, including the token estimate and the sibling pointer.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe return contents — and it does, naming shapes, text, positions, sizes, fills, and slide dimensions. The only meaningful omission is an explicit statement that the call is non-mutating and safe to run on many slides.

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 100%, including the slideRange syntax examples, so the baseline is 3. The description's note that it 'supports slideRange for multiple slides' reinforces usage but adds no syntax or constraint beyond the schema.

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 ('Detailed slide inspector') and enumerates exactly what is returned: every shape with text content, positions, sizes, fill colors, plus slide dimensions. It explicitly distinguishes itself from scan_slide, so an agent can separate the two siblings without opening either schema.

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?

It names the alternative (scan_slide) and the condition that selects it: 'For just positions without text/fills.' That is a clear routing rule. It doesn't address other overlapping siblings like show_slide, screenshot_slide, or read_deck_text, so it falls short of exhaustive when/when-not guidance.

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