pptx_export_html

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden. It discloses delegation to an internal function, the requirement for LibreOffice, error conditions with specific codes, and that the parent output directory is created if missing. It could mention that the source file is not modified, but overall is thorough.

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 sections (main description, Args, Returns, Raises), front-loads the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundancy or waste.

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 an output schema exists, the description appropriately provides return format and covers all three parameters, error cases, and distinguishes from siblings. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides detailed semantics for each parameter: path (existing .pptx), output (target path, parent created if not exist), and folder (optional base folder). This adds far beyond the schema's bare names and types.

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 'Convert a .pptx file to HTML via LibreOffice headless,' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting that .docx uses mammoth, while .pptx requires LibreOffice.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (converting .pptx to HTML) and mentions an alternative approach for .docx. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or provide exhaustive alternatives among siblings.

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