List Hyperlinks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only; the file is never modified.' It adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: broken-target detection categories, address compatibility with mutation tools, and the explicit exclusion of media controls.

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 three well-structured sentences with the core behavior front-loaded. Every sentence adds distinct value: what is listed, how it relates to mutation tools, what is excluded, and the read-only 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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is complete for invoking this tool correctly. It covers scope, hyperlink types, broken-target detection, exclusions, and the read-only guarantee, leaving no critical ambiguity.

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 clarifies that scope defaults to all slides and that file_path is the file to inspect, but it does not specify the accepted format or values for scope. This is partial compensation for an otherwise sparse schema.

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 in scope'), enumerating exactly what counts: external URLs and jump-to-slide links on shapes and text runs, with broken-target detection. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_text or list_elements.

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 states the scope default ('default all slides'), what is excluded ('Media playback controls... are not hyperlinks and are not listed'), and how the output relates to set_hyperlink and remove_hyperlink. It does not explicitly say 'use this when you need to inspect hyperlinks before modifying them,' but the context is sufficiently clear.

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