diagnose

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states this operation is 'WITHOUT mutating anything' and reveals what checks are performed with a file path, including existence, size, PowerPoint lock state, openability, and slide count.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then efficiently covers behavior, usage timing, and an alternative tool. Every sentence contributes distinct information, and the no-mutation guarantee plus the validate-tool note earn their place.

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 diagnostic nature and that an output schema exists, the description is complete. It covers what the tool inspects, the optional file behavior, the non-mutating guarantee, when to invoke it, and how it differs from the validate 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates fully for the single optional file_path parameter. It explains what happens when file_path is provided, listing existence, size, lock state, package open status, and slide count, adding meaning the schema itself lacks.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Self-check for this environment and, optionally, one file.' It then enumerates the exact diagnostics it reports, such as export engine availability, sandbox state, and lock state, which clearly differentiates it from content-editing sibling tools like apply_edits or insert_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?

It explicitly states when to run the tool: 'Run it first when any tool refuses unexpectedly or an export engine seems missing.' It also names the alternative for the real opens-clean check, the validate tool, preventing misuse.

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