pptx_get_info

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It details return value structure (including default dimensions and layout behavior) and lists error conditions with error codes. This is sufficient for transparency.

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?

Description is concise: one-sentence summary, bulleted return fields, then Args section. Every element carries informational weight without redundancy.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description thoroughly explains return fields, input parameters, and error conditions. There is no missing information for a read-only info tool.

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 has 0% coverage (no parameter descriptions), but the description's Args section adds clear explanations for 'path' and 'folder', specifying purpose and constraints (existing .pptx, optional base folder). Adds value beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'return' and resource 'presentation's structure and dimensions'. It lists specific fields (path, slide_count, layouts, dimensions) which distinguishes it from siblings like pptx_list_slides or pptx_read_slide.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The purpose is clear but without mentioning alternatives or context, it relies on the agent's ability to infer usage from purpose.

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