get_slide_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reads information ('Get information'), implying it is likely read-only, but does not confirm this or address other traits like error handling, performance, or security requirements. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with a clear purpose statement followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. It avoids unnecessary details, though the 'Returns' section could be more concise by leveraging the output schema.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return overview, though it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details, which are important given the absence of annotations.

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?

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: 'input_file: Path to the PowerPoint file (.pptx)'. Since schema description coverage is 0% (the schema only provides title and type), this compensates well by specifying the file format and purpose. However, it does not detail constraints like file size or accessibility, preventing a perfect score.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get information about slides in a PowerPoint presentation.' It specifies the verb ('Get information') and resource ('slides in a PowerPoint presentation'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_slide_preview' or 'post_process_powerpoint', which prevents a score of 5.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools such as 'get_slide_preview' (which might provide visual previews) or 'post_process_powerpoint' (which might modify presentations), leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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