ppt_inspect_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'inspect' implies a non-destructive read operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it does not modify the presentation, nor does it disclose performance characteristics or error behavior. For a read-only tool, this is adequate but not exemplary.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the first states the purpose and efficiency advantage, the second lists return contents. Very concise and front-loaded, every word earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is not needed. However, the description does not cover the optional parameters, and since the schema has no descriptions, an agent may not know how to set include_style or include_geometry. The core use case is clear, but the parameter space is under-documented.

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. The description mentions returning font styling and coordinates, which hints at include_style and include_geometry, but it does not explicitly map parameters to behavior nor explain the optional flags like include_paragraph_metadata. With five parameters, this is a significant gap.

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 it inspects all text-bearing shapes on a slide, distinguishing it from full shape-tree inspection. It also lists specific return contents (shape IDs, semantic roles, text, styling, coordinates), which separates it from sibling tools like ppt_inspect_slide or ppt_inspect_shape.

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 implies a lighter-weight alternative to full shape-tree inspection ('without full shape-tree overhead'), but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings like ppt_inspect_slide or ppt_inspect_shape, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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