wps_ppt_find_ppt_text

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful beyond-annotation context by stating that results include slide page numbers and shape information. It does not disclose details like whether the search covers the active presentation only or whether headers/notes are included, so it is not fully transparent.

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-loads the core purpose before giving example use cases. The three use-case bullets are somewhat repetitive, but they add practical guidance for intent matching without bloating the description.

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?

For a single-parameter search tool with safety annotations, the essential behavior is covered, and the return type is partially described. However, it does not specify whether the search runs against the active presentation or all open presentations, nor does it define the shape information structure, which could lead to incorrect usage when multiple presentation documents are open.

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?

The schema has one parameter with a clear description and 100% coverage. The description's use-case bullets such as '关键词' and '位置' add mild semantic color but do not meaningfully extend what the schema already tells the agent about the 'text' parameter.

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 clearly states the operation ('在演示文稿中搜索指定文本') and the resource (a presentation), and additionally specifies the output: slide page numbers and shape information. This is enough to distinguish it from siblings like wps_word_find_in_document, which targets Word documents.

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 '使用场景' section gives concrete example phrasings for when an agent should call this tool, which helps intent matching. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, though the presentation-specific wording makes the context reasonably clear.

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