LibreOffice MCP Tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool's action but lacks behavioral details such as permissions required, rate limits, error conditions (e.g., invalid slideIndex), or output format (e.g., structured notes vs. raw text). This is inadequate 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 with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose and key parameter behavior. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return value looks like (e.g., notes format, structure), error handling, or dependencies (e.g., requires an open document). For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured output info, this leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (docId and slideIndex). The description adds minimal value by clarifying that omitting slideIndex returns all notes, which is implied by the schema's description. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get' and the resource 'speaker notes for all slides or a specific slide', making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like 'presentation_get_slide' (which retrieves slide content) by focusing on notes, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other note-related tools (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 implies usage by mentioning 'Omit to get all notes' for the slideIndex parameter, which suggests when to use the optional parameter. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., vs. 'presentation_get_slide' for slide content) or prerequisites like needing an open document.

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