get_slide_preview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a 'detailed preview' but doesn't specify what that includes (e.g., text, images, formatting), whether it's a read-only operation, potential errors (e.g., invalid file paths or slide numbers), or performance aspects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic input-output.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses minimal, focused sentences. It avoids redundancy and gets straight to the point, though the 'Returns' section is somewhat vague ('Detailed preview') and could be more specific without sacrificing brevity.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers basic input semantics and purpose but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values in depth, but it should still address broader context like error handling or sibling tool differentiation.

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 both parameters: 'input_file' is clarified as a 'Path to the PowerPoint file (.pptx)', and 'slide_number' specifies '1-based indexing'. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well by explaining parameter purposes and constraints, though it could detail format expectations (e.g., absolute vs. relative paths) for a higher 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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed preview of a specific slide's content'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_slide_info', which might have overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect score.

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 like 'get_slide_info' or other PowerPoint-related siblings. It mentions the required parameters but offers no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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