ppt_get_outline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently explains that this is a read operation returning slide count, titles, and shape counts, which covers the main behavior. However, it does not disclose whether the outline is limited to top-level titles only, how shape counts are counted, or any edge cases like empty presentations. The core behavior is clear, but behavioral detail is thin.

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 front-loaded, stating the action in the first sentence, then summarizing the return value, then documenting the argument. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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?

There is an output schema, so the description need not enumerate return fields; the sentence about returned content is sufficient context. However, for a tool with no annotationsament, the description omits boundary conditions such as file-not-found behavior, unsupported formats, or whether the outline is ordered by slide order. It is adequate for a simple one-parameter read tool, but not complete.

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 must compensate. It defines the only parameter, `file_path`, as 'Path to the PowerPoint file.' This fully clarifies the meaning of the parameter beyond the schema's bare `string` type, including the expected file format implied by the description.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Get the outline of a PowerPoint presentation (.pptx).' It also specifies the exact output ('total slide count and slide-by-slide titles and shape counts'), making the tool's function unambiguous and clearly distinct from per-slide reading, searching, or editing 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 output description implies the tool is for obtaining a high-level structural overview of a presentation, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over `ppt_read_slide`, `ppt_search`, or `word_get_outline`. Usage context is present but only implied through the stated return values.

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