scan_slide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses useful behavior: it is lightweight (~40 tokens/shape), returns shape IDs/types/positions plus slide dimensions, and supports multiple slides via slideRange. It stops short of explicitly stating read-only status, but 'scanner' and 'lists' strongly imply a non-mutating operation.

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 compact and front-loads the scanner's purpose, return contents, and token cost. The final sentence cleanly redirects to the alternative for richer inspection.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately explains the return payload at a high level: shape IDs, types, positions, and slide dimensions. Combined with the fully documented input schema, it gives an agent enough to call the tool correctly, though explicit read-only status would make it complete.

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 the four parameters, including filters and slideRange format, are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only limited extra meaning by noting slideRange supports multiple slides.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it scans slides and lists shape IDs, types, positions, and slide dimensions. It explicitly distinguishes itself from inspect_slide by saying that text content and fills belong there.

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 clearly positions the tool as a lightweight shape scanner and names the alternative inspect_slide for text content and fills. The condition for choosing inspect_slide is explicit, so an agent can route correctly without opening sibling schemas.

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