export_pptx

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., file creation, download, or job trigger), required permissions, or whether the operation is safe (read-only vs destructive). This is a significant gap for a tool that likely produces an 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 very concise at four characters, but it sacrifices informativeness. While it avoids waste, it is too minimal to be fully helpful. It does not follow a structured format like 'action + resource + constraints'.

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?

Considering the lack of output schema, no annotations, and low complexity (1 param), the description should explain what the tool produces (e.g., a file path, binary stream) and any side effects. It fails to do so, leaving the agent uninformed about the result of the operation.

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% with one parameter 'deck_id' described as 'Deck ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate. No param-specific guidance is provided.

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 '导出 PPTX' states the action 'export' and the format 'PPTX', but it is in Chinese while the tool name is English, causing potential confusion. It does not specify what is being exported (likely a deck) beyond the parameter, but it does distinguish from siblings like export_pdf by format.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like export_pdf or other deck-related tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or context such as before/after actions.

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