Export Slide to Image

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the output format is determined by file extension, the returned JSON contains the absolute path, and presentation=None targets the active presentation. It does not contradict the read-only annotation because exporting does not mutate the presentation.

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 compact and well-organized with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds useful information, including the verification use case. There is no repetition of schema defaults or filler content.

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 five parameters, no output schema, and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is complete: it documents every parameter, explains the return contract, and gives a concrete scenario for when the tool is valuable. The required-parameter guidance also resolves ambiguity left by the schema's default-null fields.

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%, so the description carries the full burden of documenting parameters. It explains all five parameters: presentation name/path semantics, 1-based slide index, required output_path with extension-driven format selection, and width/height as pixel dimensions. This goes well beyond the bare schema defaults.

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: 'Export a slide to an image file for visual verification.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_slide_text or list_shapes, which provide non-visual inspection. No other sibling tool exports an image.

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 a clear use case: visual verification of overlapping shapes, text overflow, or layout regressions after an edit. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5, but the intended usage context is unmistakable.

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