wps_ppt_get_textboxes

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the scoping detail that it returns all text boxes on the slide, but it does not disclose the shape of the returned objects or any error/edge-case behavior. This is adequate for a simple read-only getter though.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and object, with no wasted words or repeated parameter details.

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 simple, one-parameter, read-only tool with rich annotations, the description is largely complete: it states the resource and return category (a list). The main gap is that it does not describe what each text-box list element contains, which would be useful since there is no output schema.

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 100%, so the single slideIndex parameter is already documented (1-based index). The description adds no additional meaning beyond confirming the slide context, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('获取' – get) and a specific resource ('幻灯片上所有文本框' – all text boxes on the slide), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like wps_ppt_get_slide_title or wps_ppt_find_ppt_text. The scope 'all text boxes on the slide' leaves no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 does not say when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. There is no guidance such as 'use this to enumerate text boxes; use find_ppt_text to search text,' so an agent must infer the usage case from the purpose statement alone.

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