convert_presentation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only lists formats and notes that PNG output contains slide images. It does not mention output-path semantics, dependency requirements, side effects, or limitations.

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?

A single dense sentence with the resource and target formats front-loaded; no filler. It is concise, though the ambiguity of the format list (input vs. output) keeps it from being a 5.

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?

For a tool with a nested options object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not clarify key invocation details such as how output_path is used for PNG, what slide_range syntax is for, or how to choose among the closely related sibling conversion tools.

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 description coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond the format list; it does not elaborate on options like slide_range, notes, image_dpi, or the output_path behavior for PNG.

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 names a specific action ('转换' / conversion) and a clear resource ('演示文稿' / presentations), and lists supported formats. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like convert_document or convert_pdf, though the 'presentation' scope narrows the purpose.

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 implies the tool should be used for presentation files by naming '演示文稿', but it never states when to choose it over the many sibling converters (convert_document, convert_image, convert_pdf) or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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