pptx_recommend_layout

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read-only operation. The description adds value by detailing the content types and return behavior (recommended layout_index and alternatives), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions exist.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, then provides a bulleted list of content types. Every sentence contributes to understanding, with no wasted words.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return value. It mentions that the tool returns a recommended layout_index and alternatives, which is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect. Minor gap: the exact format of the return is not specified, but it's acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description enriches this by explicitly enumerating valid content_type values and their semantic meanings (e.g., 'title' for section title slides). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's generic descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get the best layout for a specific content type.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('layout'), and the list of content types further clarifies its scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pptx_add_slide, which likely creates slides with a given layout.

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 when to use the tool (when determining layout for content) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. There is no mention of conflicts with pptx_add_slide or other tools, leaving the agent without clear decision criteria.

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