list_hyperlinks

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining the exact output contract (addresses accepted by set_hyperlink and remove_hyperlink), broken-target detection behavior, and explicit exclusions. It also states the file is never modified, reinforcing and clarifying the annotation without contradiction.

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 dense and front-loads the core purpose, with each sentence adding useful information such as output compatibility and exclusions. The final 'Read-only; the file is never modified' is slightly redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation but is brief and reinforces the safety guarantee.

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 scope semantics, included hyperlink types, target detection, output compatibility, exclusions, and read-only behavior. Given that an output schema exists, the lack of explicit return-value details is acceptable; the tool is well specified for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining that 'scope' defaults to all slides, but it does not specify the expected format for scope values or clarify file_path beyond what the property name implies. The file_path parameter is self-evident, but the scope parameter remains underspecified for an agent that needs to pass a non-default value.

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 uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('hyperlinks') and details exactly what is included: external URLs and jump-to-slide links on shapes and text runs, with broken-target detection. It also distinguishes itself from related concepts by explicitly excluding media playback controls, so an agent can tell it apart from sibling tools.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to enumerate hyperlinks in scope, with a default of all slides, and notes that media playback controls should not be expected here. It also ties the output to set_hyperlink and remove_hyperlink, implying a coupled usage pattern, though it does not explicitly state when to prefer list_elements or get_text over this tool.

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