verify_slides

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns a list of issues and uses the same shape data as inspect_slide without OOXML, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, or what side effects (if any) exist.

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, front-loaded paragraph with no filler. Every sentence contributes: the check list, the return behavior, and the relationship to inspect_slide.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description says only that it returns 'a list of issues found' without describing the issue object structure (e.g., fields like shape ID, severity, message). It also omits read-only status, which an agent might need to know before invoking.

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 slideIndex and presentationId are already documented. The description adds value by explaining what each check type means (e.g., 'placeholder drift from layout defaults', 'full-bleed background covers'), which goes beyond the enum labels in 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Run programmatic checks on a slide') and enumerates exactly what is checked, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from inspect_slide by noting it uses the same shape data for validation rather than inspection.

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 enumerated checks imply the tool is for auditing slide layout issues, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus inspect_slide or scan_slide. The mention of 'same shape data as inspect_slide' is contextual but not a usage rule or exclusion.

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