list_elements

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that each call handles exactly one kind, returns a flat list with ids and locations, and that slide-scoped kinds honor scope semantics (None, selector, or list). However, it does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, nor does it mention errors, pagination, ordering, or limits, which keeps it from being fully transparent.

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?

At four sentences, the description is compact and front-loaded: purpose, kinds, return shape, and scope behavior appear before the downstream use-case sentence. The phrase 'THE multiplex enumerator' is stylistic, and the final pack sentence is useful but slightly tangential.

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 an unannotated tool, the description covers the essential invocation semantics: valid kind values, scope behavior, return shape, and common downstream uses. Since an output schema exists, not detailing every return field is acceptable; the main remaining gap is the lack of explicit guidance for choosing between this and sibling listing/viewing tools.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), but the description compensates by listing valid values for kind and explaining scope meaning: 'None = all slides, a selector, or a list.' file_path is not elaborated, but it is a conventional path parameter and its type is provided in the schema. This partial compensation goes well beyond the bare 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?

The description identifies the tool as a multiplex enumerator and explicitly lists the distinct kinds it can return (slides, shapes, placeholders, tables, charts, etc.), so an agent knows exactly what resource this covers. It also anchors the purpose to concrete downstream tasks: 'find layout names for insert_slide and shape ids for editing.' It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling get/list tools, so sibling differentiation is mostly implicit.

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 gives explicit use cases: use it to find layout names for insert_slide and shape ids for editing, and notes that editing tools live in the enable_tools packs. It does not state when to prefer siblings like get_presentation_view or get_presentation_info, so it lacks formal exclusions or alternative routing.

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