pptx_list_slides

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the return format (a list of dicts with specific keys), behavior for empty decks, and error conditions (ERR_FILE_NOT_FOUND, ERR_UNSUPPORTED_FMT). However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or that it does not modify the file. The description correctly implies a non-destructive read operation.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with a clear one-sentence purpose, then lists return keys in bullet points, followed by an Args section, and finally exceptions. Every sentence provides valuable information, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary text.

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 the tool's simplicity (lists slides) and the presence of an output schema in the description (implicitly defined by the return format), the description covers the main aspects: input parameters, return format, and error handling. It could be enhanced with a brief example or note about performance on large files, but it is otherwise complete.

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?

The input schema provides parameter names and types but no descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining 'path' as an existing .pptx file and 'folder' as an optional base folder for relative paths. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though it could include more details like file path formats or allowed extensions.

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 that the tool returns 'one dict per slide in insertion order', specifying the exact keys and their meanings. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pptx_read_slide (which reads a single slide) and pptx_get_info (which returns file-level metadata). The verb 'list' combined with the resource 'slides' makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains what the tool does and how it behaves (e.g., empty deck returns []), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pptx_read_slide or pptx_get_info. The context of sibling tools suggests the use case, but without explicit exclusions or comparisons, the guidance is only implied.

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