GenOffice pptx slides

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the operation opens a file and lists slides/elements, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't explicitly state it's non-destructive, mention failure modes (e.g., invalid path, corrupt file), or describe performance characteristics. The open operation's side effects on the GenOffice engine are unclear.

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, zero waste. First sentence defines the action and output; second sentence gives usage guidance. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

The tool is relatively simple (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), so the description covers the essentials. However, without annotations and output schema, it doesn't describe what the returned text preview structure looks like or whether the open operation requires the app to be launched first (sibling genoffice_app_launch suggests a dependency). This is adequate but slightly under-specified for a tool with zero structured metadata.

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% (only the 'path' parameter, clearly described as absolute path to the .pptx). The description doesn't add parameter details beyond the schema, but the single parameter is self-explanatory. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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?

Description states specific verb+resource (opens .pptx with GenOffice engine) and clearly lists what output is delivered (every slide with id, name, type, text preview). It distinguishes itself from genoffice_pptx_patch by positioning as a pre-edit inspection tool.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use BEFORE genoffice_pptx_patch and explains the purpose (identify which slide and element to edit). This gives clear sequencing guidance and names the alternative tool it pairs with.

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