document.list_shapes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. "List" implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description does not explicitly state that, nor does it cover permissions, side effects, error behavior, or return characteristics.

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 extremely short, front-loaded, and free of filler. Every word contributes to identifying the operation and its default scope.

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?

For a simple one-parameter list tool, the description is adequate to attempt a call, especially with the default noted. However, because there are no annotations and no output schema, the missing return-shape and parameter-indexing details leave clear gaps.

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% for the single optional index parameter. The description partially compensates by saying the shapes are on a slide and that the default is the current slide, which implies index selects a slide, but it does not clarify indexing base, valid range, or exact semantics.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: "List shapes on a slide," and adds the useful scope detail "default: current." It is clearly distinguishable from get_shape by plurality and from list_slides by resource, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 intended use is implied: enumerate shapes on a slide, with the current slide as the default target. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_shape or other shape-related siblings, so usage is only minimally conveyed.

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