List Shapes

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a read-only operation, and the description adds useful return-structure details that would otherwise be unknown without an output schema. It does not contradict the annotation, though it does not discuss error behavior or the slide_index required/optional discrepancy.

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 tightly structured with a one-sentence summary, an Args section, and a Returns section. There is no filler, and the most actionable information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers both parameters and the return format, which is essential given the absence of an output schema. It falls short of a 5 because it leaves the slide_index required/optional contradiction unresolved and does not mention edge cases or error behavior.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by explaining both parameters: presentation means name/path with None meaning active presentation, and slide_index is described as 1-based. However, the description says slide_index is 'required' while the schema marks it with default null and no required parameters, creating ambiguity.

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 clear action, 'List shapes on a slide,' and enumerates the returned fields: name, type, position, and text. This makes the tool's purpose readily distinguishable from siblings like list_slides or get_slide_text.

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 provides parameter context but no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or how it relates to sibling tools such as get_slide_text or list_slides.

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