powerpoint_inspect_template

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) by disclosing that inspection runs through a hidden desktop PowerPoint instance, requires Windows PowerPoint, and refuses to run when a user PowerPoint session is active. The only gap is that 'by default' hints at an override without explaining how to enable it.

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 tightly written sentences: the first states the action and returns, the second states the environment requirements. Zero filler and the most important content is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description does carry the burden of describing results and does name the three returned collections, plus platform and session constraints. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned indexes or failure modes, leaving a small gap.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage (absolute path or path relative to the server working directory). The description adds no extra syntax, path constraints, or file-type requirements, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (inspect) and resource (an existing PPTX template) and enumerates the concrete outputs: designs, custom layouts and placeholder indexes. The template-generation framing implicitly separates it from the sibling powerpoint_inspect_presentation, which is not template-oriented.

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 phrase 'for template-based generation' implies the workflow context (inspect before calling powerpoint_create_from_template), but no alternative is named and there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, e.g. versus powerpoint_inspect_presentation or powerpoint_audit_presentation.

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