list_slide_layouts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool lists layouts but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or how the data is returned (e.g., format, pagination). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose ('List all available slide layouts') and adds useful detail ('with their parameters and descriptions'). There is zero waste, and every word earns its place by clarifying the scope of the listing.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the purpose but lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, return format) and usage guidelines. Without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to inform the agent about how the tool behaves and when to use it.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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 the verb 'list' and the resource 'slide layouts', specifying what information is included ('parameters and descriptions'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'generate_slide' (creation) and 'init_presentation' (initialization) by focusing on listing existing layouts. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar listing tools (though none exist in siblings).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used before generating slides or if it's for reference only, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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